| Unit
Planning |
by Margaret Bayless
|
 Sometimes the way we try to solve a problem is part
of the problem.
The following article has been written to support the discussion among
employees about the unit planning process. I would urge my
colleagues to read, critique, and add to my comments.
QUESTIONS
At Lane we have spent the last two fall terms working on unit plans,
which have taken up a great deal of our valuable time. We call
ourselves a learning centered college, which presumes that our valuable
time is spent creating a learning centered environment for our students
(and some would argue for all employees). The time spent on unit
planning in relation to the college's stated values, raises the
following question: How has the unit planning process supported and
promoted a learning centered environment created by all
employees? Or we could reframe the question: What is the
college-wide problem that unit planning is trying to solve as employees
work to create a learning centered college?
THE PROBLEM
I understand that the
problem has been framed by ET as the lack of meaningful department and
division plans used to drive the College budget. In the past the
budget has driven planning, and most planning did not have the
participation of knowledgeable employees.
ISSUES AND POSSIBLE
SOLUTIONS
Assuming the College's
budget has not been determined by coherent planning, (which I agree it
needs to be) and the unit planning process is attempting to solve that
problem, what are the issues that have surfaced with last year's and
this year's unit planning process that need to be addressed? How
will addressing these issues help us decide if unit planning is
actually dealing with the problem, is dealing with different unnamed
problems, or is adding to the lack of a plan-determined budget.
From department, division
and one-on-one discussions with some faculty and classified employees,
the following is a list of issues and a few suggested solutions I have
formulated. I am sure others could add to or revise this list.
1. The process must be
adequately tested and reconsidered. In any case, we need to learn
all that can be learned by the failures of the design, and remember
that not one size fits all.
|
|
|
|
2. The formulation of the
process needs to be open enough to have employees fully involved in the
development of the plan's
construction as it is tested so it will work
for diverse departments,
divisions and programs.
3. We need adequate,
accurate information including the actual finances of the
College. For instance, how much money does the College bring in
from tuition, taxes & state funding? For instance, there are
tuition-based courses in English, but clearly there is other money in
the college budget brought in by the whole program. What is that amount
of money and how much is spent to sustain the department's present work
and support future planning? How much of that money goes into the
General Fund, and then how is the General Fund money spent and by what
criteria? Answers to these basic questions are just some of the
important data that have not been available to employees working on
unit plans.
4. Where is the complete
analysis of how last year's unit plan was used to determine this year's
College budget, including the criteria used to make final decisions?
For instance, how is the
goal to have all the college's finances used to support learning first
determined beyond the shallow argument that everything we do is
connected to learning?
5. Sustainability has been
introduced as a major goal of the college this year. Does that
include the sustainability of the employees and their workloads, or a
quality education for our students, or the infrastructure to support
academic innovation?
6. We have well publicized
values for the College. What are the actual practiced values of
the College, and how are we going to address those values as we create
plans that will actually drive the budget? Consider, for example,
the over-reliance on part-time instructors, Consider the lack of full
access to financial information for employees at a public institution.
7. Some faculty colleagues
who complained about the time it took to complete the process were told
by a manager to blame their union, presumably because unit planning is
part of shared governance. So does the president and the rest of
ET support shared governance? Why must unions be blamed for
insisting on decisions being made (that include planning) by those
doing the actual work? More importantly, there is nothing shared about
this process except for the legwork of filling out the Byzantine
forms. The whole system, including the forms, was created by
others who don't seem to comprehend the actual day-to-day work of
departments and divisions and without participation by most of the
employees.
8. What about developing
two or three-year or five-year unit plans? These longer time
frames are necessary to bring real strategic thinking to the budget
process. We need to ask why isn't this happening.
continued
|
|
|
Unit
Planning
|
| by Gary Mort |
 First, I need to be clear that I am representing myself and
am sharing my perceptions and impressions. I am not speaking for my
colleagues in Math or Science.
The Science Division at LCC is not planning averse. Two years ago we
spent most of an academic year doing a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats) Analysis. It was grueling, voluntary, and
ultimately meaningful and useful. Unit Planning as realized at LCC this
year was grueling.
As far as I am aware this was classic top down stuff. End users were
consulted neither prospectively nor retrospectively (with the exception
of Patrick Lanning's proprio motu efforts (thanks Patrick)). This does
not seem to match our plan, do, check, act mantra, but it does match
our -- if we don't want to do something we plan, and plan and
…Otherwise we do, do, do reflexively.
Some specifics.
First let's look at the timing of the process. Realistically there is
never going to be a good time for a project of this magnitude, but the
timing could have hardly been worse. We got the required information
while the quarter was in progress with results due in around finals –
appalling. A potentially better timing would be the materials available
in late winter or early spring, with the deadline in the fall. For a
project of this magnitude it also seems wholly appropriate to have some
set asides during in-service.
The data we needed were not uniformly available in a timely way. Which
begs the question of why departments and divisions were asked for data
that was already available in a central location.
The assessment portion is poorly designed, and potentially duplicates
or worse, interferes with effective assessment plans on going on
elsewhere on campus.
Faculty were distracted enough, and spent enough time on Unit Planning,
that things like classroom preparation suffered; this took a toll on
students. At the end of the day the reason we are all here is to help
students learn. With a clear understanding that if we don't plan we
will also fail in this, the planning process itself should be designed
and implemented in such a way that it negatively impacts instruction as
little as possible.
continued |
Letters
|
Send letters to
griffithsb@lanecc.edu
|
Past Issues
|
|
|
