Message from the President
My thanks to the members of the Strategic Planning Coordinating Committee and to the generous contributions to the planning process made by so many SF State students, staff, faculty, alumni and friends. One of the great strengths of our new strategic plan is that it emerged from broad engagement in the planning process that is documented here.
Our new plan is driven by the values that inspire our work. It confronts our greatest obstacles. And, it captures our energy and optimism for the future that we will build together.
- Les Wong
Original Theme Areas
- Theme 1 - Building the San Francisco State Identity
- Theme 2 - Maximizing Student Success
- Theme 3 - Academic Master Plan
- Theme 4 - Physical Master Plan
- Theme 5 - Advancing Campus & Community Climate
- Theme 6 - Elevating Institutional Support
- Theme 7 - Emerging Issues
President Wong is leading a broad-based and collaborative strategic planning effort to review the institutional mission and strategic goals. For the last year the Strategic Planning Coordinating Committee (SPCC) has engaged the campus and surrounding community to identify several institutional-level objectives for growth and improvement over the short, medium and long term. The SPCC is thankful for the tremendous contributions that students, faculty, staff, alumni and friends have made to the planning effort and are pleased to share the draft strategic plan for community review.
Theme Subcommittee Reports & Feedback
Theme subcommittees have sought broad feedback on important questions and they have engaged the campus and surrounding community to help chart the future of SF State. The reports below indicate the status of their subcommittee work and taken together begin to shape the direction of SF State's next strategic plan. These reports are not meant to be definitive, rather the goal is to share the direction and status of the planning group with the campus community, alumni and friends. Your feedback is strongly encouraged as we work to integrate these reports into a strategic plan that will provide direction and momentum for our collective future. You can leave comments by following the link at the bottom of each report.
- Theme 1 Report
- Theme 2 Report
- Theme 3 Report
- Theme 4 Report
- Theme 5 Report
- Theme 6 Report
The Draft Plan was circulated on October 15, 2014.
The following provocations were derived from initial campus and community input. They were expressed through the theme area reports and served as inspirations for the initiatives aligned to each of the five core values. They continue to be important reflection points for this living document.
- Do we encourage, support and respectfully engage those who assert opinions and positions that are different from our own and sometimes difficult to hear?
- Do we challenge ourselves to speak, listen and act in ways that support our highest values as individuals and members of a community?
- Through our pedagogical practices, curricula and campus engagement activities, do we encourage students to think critically, speak courageously and own their own minds?
- Do we seek to foster honest, responsible and responsive dialogue in our academic structures and communities, thereby creating models for civil society?
- Do we embrace pluralism and counter-stories, or do we privilege single stories?
- Do we embrace a culturally responsive perspective that promotes accepting, embracing and learning about others and creating equity opportunities for students, staff and faculty?
Life of the Mind Provocations
- Do the forms and spaces of our teaching encourage active, rather than passive, learning?
- Do we facilitate students’ access to experiential learning opportunities?
- Do our curricular planning practices allow students ample opportunity for intellectual exploration and growth?
- Do our academic structures encourage intellectual community and exchange across the disciplines and throughout the campus?
- Do our retention, tenure and promotion processes recognize the full range of faculty achievement in creative and professional venues as well as traditional academic ones?
- Do we assume that all people think, learn and communicate in the same way?
- Are the values of inclusiveness, equity and justice infused in the curriculum and across all campus operations?
- Do we have a sufficiently broad and sophisticated set of pedagogical perspectives and support structures that can be deployed to meet the needs of our diverse student population?
- Is our ability to offer the crucial combination of access and quality impeded by a lack of resources devoted to University-wide pedagogy development, tutoring and advising?
- Do budget decisions and resource allocations align with our commitment to equity?
- Do we have a plan in place to support the financial and housing needs of a diverse faculty, staff and student population in this expensive region?
- Does technology, including online education, offer pathways to greater access, or does it threaten to compromise equity and the quality of the education we can offer?
- Does the lack of current technologies in our classroom and work setting restrict our ability to provide students with access to the tools of use in professional practice?
- Are we satisfied with the current level of student engagement? How do we plan to strengthen student engagement?
- Are we willing as an institution to invest in infrastructure that will provide opportunities for students, faculty and staff to engage in purposeful activities and interactions (curricular and co-curricular) that will increase their congruence with the community?
- As the physical master plan is reconsidered, is the University willing to, despite cost, ensure that future renovations and building on campus will include informal community gathering spaces that are intentional by design?
- In what ways and to what degree do we as an institution intend to assess the campus voice and quality of services? Furthermore, how do we intend to apply what we learn from those assessments?
- How will we celebrate our successes and how will we communicate those successes to the larger community?
- As we begin to look outward, beyond the campus community, to what degree will we engage with the San Francisco community (and beyond) and what can be done to improve the cohesiveness of our outreach activities?
- Do we have the appropriate structures and incentives to foster interdisciplinary collaboration that addresses emerging challenges?
- Do our alumni see SF State as a key contributor to their personal resilience, and how great is their commitment to ensuring institutional resilience?
- Do students, faculty and staff have an appropriate understanding of the funding and economic models that contribute to institutional sustainability?
- Do our systems of rewards appropriately incentivize work that fosters resilience in our institution and our community?
- Does our surrounding community appreciate the contributions that SF State makes to community resilience?
- Do our alumni stand as exemplars of resilience in their communities?