THIS WEEK AT THE MOJO

Our next aMOOC, “Community-College,” will launch on Friday, July 12, with the publication of "The Challenge of Change as Part of Strategic Planning," Chapter 3 of Robert P. Delprino's forthcoming book (August 2013), The Human Side of Strategic Planning in Higher Education.

Meet with SCUP Mojo authors on Sunday afternoon at SCUP–48. Here’s a page of anticipatory readings.

The Mojo now has 1,114 of your colleagues as participants.

Mojo Roundtables— We continue to add professional interest subgroups (Planning Roundtables) within the Mojo. You may want to use one or more to get connected to a virtual space which will eventually become a lasting network.

• Institutional Direction (Strategic) Planning
• Budgeteers
• Facilities Design | Athletics
• Governmental Policies
• Academic Planning
• Facilities Planning | Housing
• Learning Environments
• Enrollment Planning
• Space Management/Utilization
• Sustainability
• Higher Education Planning in Africa

IN DEPTH | More on This Week's Top Stories

[download pdf] “Space and Power in the Ivory Tower”— author Sandy Blanchette, Umass, is among the many SCUP book and journal article authors participating experimental sessions at SCUP–48, in this case a “flipped roundtable.” Those sessions are Sunday, July 28 at 4:15 pm in San Diego. Read her article now. Plan to join her in San Diego on Sunday, July 28.

Terry Calhoun, SCUP Publishing—

Sandy, why don’t you give us a brief synopsis of your paper and the research behind it?

Sandy Blanchette, University of Massachusetts—

Thank you, Terry. As you know, I conducted my research in order to better understand how public higher education institutions make decisions about space management issues. From working in a higher ed institution, I had seen that the problems sometimes seemed really overwhelming. I was hoping that studying other institutions would shed light on what kinds of methods they use in successfully (or not) making decisions around space management. ...

It’s really important for an institution to know what it's space problems are before concluding that more space is a solution.

Every space problem is not a "We need more space" problem

One of the first interesting things that I discovered was that every institution believed it needed more space, but when it came right down to it, it often wasn’t easy to support their claims. When examined, it turned out that either:

• The campus had poor quality space; or
• The space it had was in the wrong location; or
• They really didn’t have enough space.

It’s really important for an institution to know what it's space problems are before concluding that more space is a solution.

Transparent processes

The next thing that became apparent was that decision making processes around space, space allocation, and space usage varied in their inclusiveness and transparency. Who should be involved in the decision making? Who does have the power to make these decisions? My recommendation is that whoever makes the decisions, a campus should establish a process for decision making so that everyone knows what the process is, where they fit in the process, how they request for space or whatever it is they’re looking for is progressing through whatever system has been designed.

Delegating power and authority

I found that many institutions had space management decision making at a very high level. When it was at the highest level as the vice chancellors or the provosts, then many of decisions were delayed because the people make them were distracted by more pressing issues. I recommend that you delegate your decision making power down.

Institutional strategic priorities

Everyone who is on a space committee needs to have institutional strategic priorities as their main motivator. Not departmental, not disciplinary—institutional.

Good data

In the paper, I stress the importance of good data and that not only quantitative data but qualitative data as well because space has gone beyond just square footage. Especially in buildings that are retro-fitted for higher ed purposes you can’t always have the dimensions or the square feet that might be recommended through national standards. It’s really important for people to look at the space and see exactly what’s being done and what the department needs are.

Download and read Blanchette’s article now.

Ed Schools and Disruptive Forces— “The first edition of the NCTQ Teacher Prep Review is an unprecedented evaluation of more than 1,100 colleges and universities that prepare elementary and secondary teachers.” And it’s controversial. We think this is an institutional realm where disruptive forces will continue to be felt.

Download the executive summary here (pdf).

For now, the evaluations provide clear and convincing evidence, based on a four-star rating system, that a vast majority of teacher preparation programs do not give aspiring teachers adequate return on their investment of time and tuition dollars. These are among the most alarming findings:

• Less than 10 percent of rated programs earn three stars or more. Only four programs, all secondary, earn four stars: Lipscomb and Vanderbilt, both in Tennessee; Ohio State University; and Furman University in South Carolina.
• Only one institution, Ohio State, earns more than three stars for both an elementary (3½ stars) and a secondary (4 stars) program.
• It is far too easy to get into a teacher preparation program. Just over a quarter of programs restrict admissions to students in the top half of their class, compared with the highest-performing countries, which limit entry to the top third.
• Fewer than one in nine elementary programs and just over one-third of high school programs are preparing candidates in content at the level necessary to teach the new Common Core State Standards now being implemented in classrooms in 45 states and the District of Columbia.
• The “reading wars” are far from over. Three out of four elementary teacher preparation programs still are not teaching the methods of reading instruction that could substantially lower the number of children who never become proficient readers, from 30 percent to under 10 percent. Instead, the teacher candidate is all too often told to develop his or her “own unique approach” to teaching reading.
• Just 7 percent of programs ensure that their student teachers will have uniformly strong experiences, such as only allowing them to be placed in classrooms taught by teachers who are themselves effective, not just willing volunteers.

SUNY Campuses to Become Tax-Free Zones?— Not just the campuses, but adjoining space: ”Under the plan, the companies [locating there and using campus intellectual resources] would pay no sales, property, or business taxes for a decade, and employees would pay no income taxes.” Imagine the effects of this policy [The Chronicle] on every kind of campus planning. What would the effects be on workers in the same building, some of whom pay state income taxes and some of whom don’t?

The 64 campuses of the State University of New York system would become tax-free zones under an economic-development plan announced on Wednesday by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. According to the governor’s office, the “Tax Free NY” program would seek to lure technology companies and other businesses that could make use of the intellectual capital produced by SUNY’s colleges and universities.

In a statement released by Governor Cuomo’s office, Nancy L. Zimpher, chancellor of SUNY, said, “The governor has said many times that SUNY is the economic engine for New York, and these new tax-free zones will further our campuses’ ability to innovate, create jobs, and attract new companies through public-private partnerships.”

Under the plan, the companies would pay no sales, property, or business taxes for a decade, and employees would pay no income taxes. The venture seeks to replicate the economic success of SUNY’s College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, which Mr. Cuomo said had attracted billions of dollars of investment to Albany, N.Y.

The tax-free areas would include all SUNY campuses.