Standard Two: Planning and Evaluation

Planning Description

In May 2010 the Board of Trustees adopted Wesleyan 2020 as a framework for strategic planning over the short- and long-term. Drafted by the President and discussed in various fora, it reflects the input of faculty, trustees, staff, alumni, and students. The early sections give a sense of the principles and purposes that have guided the University over the last 50 years and that continue to serve us today. The later sections outline our overarching goals, specific objectives, and the strategies we will use to achieve them. Complementing Wesleyan 2020 is the Wesleyan Strategy Map (available through the e-portfolio), created by the Board of Trustees to guide it in its deliberations. The map serves the purpose of putting prominent Wesleyan stakeholders “on the same page.”

Select measures from Wesleyan 2020 (and the Strategy map) have been placed on a dashboard for administrative review and assessment of progress. Cabinet members use Wesleyan 2020 in making decisionsand report to the trustees on their accomplishments within its overarching goals. Human Resources asks all employees to develop their own annual goals within that same rubric. These practices help ensure that administrative energies are focused on institutional priorities and that employees view their efforts as contributing to a shared mission.

Academic Affairs, led by the Provost, is responsible for overseeing the details of academic planning and evaluation within the overarching goals of Wesleyan 2020. Specific goals and plans are developed and implemented by the three academic division Deans in concert with other senior administrative staff and department chairs. Regular meetings of the Provost with the Deans allow for the coordination of planning and evaluation efforts. The Provost often convenes committees composed of faculty and staff to study specific issues and make recommendations.

The long-range projection, the University’s ten-year financial forecast, serves as both a short-term and long-term planning tool to help the University maintain financial equilibrium. The planning assumptions reflect the University’s strategic priorities and serve as the primary drivers in the projection. The Executive Budget Committee – consisting of the President, Provost, and the Vice President for Finance and Administration – consults with Cabinet and the Budget Priorities Committee on financial planning. The Budget Priorities Committee, an advisory committee comprising faculty, staff, and students, was created in 2008 to provide input from the University community.

During the planning process, data on our peer schools is gathered and analyzed to help formulate recommendations. For example, student charges are compared to those of peer schools. New money requests are submitted through Cabinet members to the Executive Budget Committee each year. Such requests require justification based on Wesleyan 2020 and must identify metrics for annual evaluation. Approved initiatives are initially funded as pilot programs, and only those that consistently demonstrate desired outcomes are permanently added into the operating budget.

At the November meeting of the Board, its Finance Committee reviews planning assumptions in the long-range projection, and has a preliminary discussion on student charges with the administration. At the February meeting, the President recommends the proposed student charges to the Board for approval. At the May meeting, the President recommends a balanced annual budget proposal to the Board for approval. The Board periodically establishes working groups to review and update financial policies. A policy on endowment spending was updated and adopted in the spring (see Standard 9 for details). Another, on capital policy, is currently under review.

Appraisal

In his first weeks on campus, President Roth in 2007 invited faculty to make brief proposals for new academic programs or changes to existing ones. More than 50 proposals were reviewed by senior staff, faculty, and student representatives. The administration decided to focus on six major areas: financial aid (especially reducing required loan amounts), curricular reform (especially for the first and last years), internationalization, civic engagement, creative campus, and college of the environment. These were incorporated into Wesleyan 2020.

The use of Wesleyan 2020 in guiding decisions about allocating resources has been especially visible with respect to new programs. For example: the College of the Environment received support primarily because it promised to help energize Wesleyan’s distinctive educational experience (goal 1); the Wesleyan Media Project received support primarily because it promised to enhance recognition of the University as an extraordinary institution (goal 2); the Summer Session was launched because it promised increased revenue while remaining consistent with core principles (goal 3). For the President’s review of how planning is being implemented more broadly, see Wesleyan 2020 update and archive.

Recent Board meetings have approached long-term planning in the broadest sense by focusing on innovation and changes in the world of liberal arts education. The gist of those discussions has been reported by the President via his blog.

The last accreditation review of “Planning and Evaluation” recommended that we address course-access difficulties and the question of educational outcomes. Having determined that too many classes were being offered in the same time slots, we set guidelines for departments in order to distribute classes more widely across the teaching day. In response to the question of educational outcomes, we are developing department-level assessment plans; for more on our response, see Preface and Standard 4.

With regards to facilities planning, there was an organizational change in 2009—with the Space Committee and Masterplan Executive Committee reconstituted as a single Facilities Planning Committee. With most masterplan projects completed at the time, it was no longer efficient for a large, overlapping group of senior staff to hold frequent meetings. This was also an opportunity for the membership to expand their focus to include all facilities issues, including an oversight of real estate transactions, ADA projects, and major maintenance annual planning. (See current masterplan.) Even before the economic crisis, plans were dropped for a new University Museum; plans for a new complex in the Life Sciences were also dropped in favor of improvements to the current science facilities.

Through careful management of our resources, the University has achieved a balanced budget for 18 consecutive years. Additionally, the University has set aside a $4 million one-time reserve to address uncontrollable fluctuations in revenue or expenses. Still, the economic pressures facing the University are substantial. Looking back, a long period of overspending endowment income and failing to put new gifts or other dollars into the endowment left Wesleyan with roughly one-third of the economic capacity (measured by endowment per student, net of debt) of the average school in its peer group. Facing further immediate pressure from reduced endowment returns due to the economic downturn, the University set forth to reduce its spending habitsⁱ and invest more money from the Annual Fund into the endowment. 

To maintain excellence and preserve our academic core, spending cuts have been ameliorated somewhat by increased tuition revenue provided by an increase in the size of the student body. In many areas where cuts took place, expectations were not lowered and services and responsibilities were maintained.

The University has almost doubled the percentage of gift income directed to the endowment, and spending from endowment returns has also been reduced by roughly 2%. Endowment management has been addressed, and in August 2010 a new Chief Investment Officer was hired to pursue a long-term plan for endowment growth based on asset allocation, manager selection, disciplined rebalancing, and an equity-orientation.  

The need for a sustainable economic model has loomed over planning here for many years, and this past year discussions with faculty, students, staff, alumni, and trustees (discussions reported on this past spring in the President’s blog) have led to some changes in budget assumptions. These changes—limiting tuition increases, taking into consideration the ability of some applicants to pay, and promoting a three-year option—will doubtless continue to discussed.

Projection

Wesleyan’s academic program is constantly evolving, with many new possibilities arising; at the same time, there are few extinctions, even though we have options on the books that few students choose. The University will continue to encourage the development of innovative new courses and keep an eye out for areas in which to prune. Active consideration is being given to developing online and blended learning courses, addressing the growing demand for continuing education after the undergraduate years, and expanding the academic calendar.

The University’s ongoing commitment to major maintenance has left the campus looking noticeably more attractive. In recent years, facilities planning has concentrated on the central campusⁱⁱ, but there remain important projects (such as deteriorating buildings in the Center for the Arts) that cannot be handled through the major maintenance budget. 

Wesleyan 2020 has laid out clear objectives with respect to its economic model. Costs are being contained, and so far the budget has been balanced despite a decreased reliance on annual fund gifts. Endowment performance is improving, and donations to the University reached an all-time high in FY11. The capital campaign, now in a quiet phase, aims to direct $225M of a $400M goal into the endowment. However, areas of financial concern for the future include the affordability of our tuition costs and the increasing need for financial aid; staff retention and morale due to restricted compensation; and the ability to maintain endowment growth and strong fundraising income in the current economic context. Changes in budget assumptions made this spring will, if maintained, help with the first of these.

Institutional Effectiveness

Wesleyan 2020 is a flexible tool with a self-evident shelf life. There are a variety of ways in which thoughts on planning can be discussed and communicated, including Cabinet meetings, Senior Staff meetings, faculty meetings, and discussions with students and alumni. Mass emails and the President’s blog will likely continue to be important vehicles for disseminating thoughts and reporting progress on planning to the larger community.

Evaluation

Description

Wesleyan collects and uses a wide variety of data to evaluate our progress in meeting our strategic objectives; many of these efforts are conducted by or coordinated through Wesleyan’s Office of Institutional Research. Data sources include surveys, internal and external databases, and consortia such as COFHE, HEDS, and AAUP. The Office of Institutional Research also handles most internal and external reporting, including federal and state reporting (e.g., IPEDS, HEOA), guidebooks, and University enrollment projections, and works closely with campus offices such as Admission and Student Affairs to help meet the research and data needs of these departments.

The University also employs decentralized institutional research efforts to gauge the effectiveness of its undertakings, including evaluations conducted by faculty (see Standard 4), by staff within Wesleyan administrative departments (e.g., Admission Reports, collection of alumni data in University Relations, Student Affairs Learning Outcomes initiative), and by ad hoc committees which undertake focused inquiry into campus initiatives, policies, and issues. In 2010-11, committees studied topics as diverse as the evaluation of teaching, the issue of sexual violence, and the instruction of foreign languages. These decentralized efforts employ both quantitative and qualitative methods (e.g., focus groups) and have memberships appropriate to the scope of the investigation at hand.

Appraisal Evaluation

In 2002 Wesleyan developed a more formalized process for the external review of academic departments and programs, with the aim of conducting three outside reviews each year—one per divisionⁱⁱⁱ. In the past decade, 23 departments/programs have undergone external review. Final reports are submitted to the Provost, shared with the EPC and the relevant Dean, and then discussed with members of the Department.

In the past few years we have witnessed drastic changes within the University and the landscape of higher education that have increased demands for the dissemination/evaluation of data. We have striven to become more transparent internally; for instance, we now share data (such as senior satisfaction ratings), once reserved mainly for the President’s Cabinet and trustees, with the entire faculty.^iv And during the economic crisis of 2008, we became much more open about sharing all budget data with faculty and staff. In fall 2008, the University began constructing institutional data marts to simplify data structures with the aim of streamlining and decentralizing data access and reporting, and it now has begun to report off the new structures. However, the University has also experienced the pains associated with this type of transition and continues to work to improve these systems to meet ever-increasing data needs.

Projection

Wesleyan is committed to improving collection of, access to, and use of data in decision-making, planning, and evaluating progress toward our goals. Efficiencies associated with improved data access and dissemination should enable Institutional Research to spend more time analyzing and employing these data for strategic purposes.

Institutional Effectiveness

The effectiveness of its evaluation activities is monitored closely by the University, but there are areas—notably assessing what students have learned (as opposed to what we’ve taught them) and then using that information to assess the curricular efforts of individual departments—where it has been less effective than desirable.