Part 5: Final Recommendation - SUNY Cobleskill

More documents

Recommendations

Info

BENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS SUNY Cobleskill Facilities Master Plan – Phase 5 Report November 2011 B – ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS ASSESSMENT OF PROJECTIONS Graphic B1 Student, Faculty & Staff Projections Student FTE Projected by SUNY IR Student FTE Projected by FMP Staff FTE Projected by FMP Faculty FTE Projected by FMP FTE 3,000 Student 2,500FTE Projected by FMP 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 2,446 FTE (Actual) 2,493 FTE (Actual) 2,446 FTE (Actual) 2,493 FTE (Actual) 121 FTE Faculty (Actual) 2,575 FTE (Proj. by SUNY IR) 2009 is the base year of the FMP 286 FTE Staff 2,515 FTE (Actual) Student FTE Projected by SUNY IR Staff FTE Projected by FMP Faculty FTE Projected by FMP 2,582 FTE (Proj. by SUNY IR) 2,474 FTE (Proj. by FMP) 130 FTE Faculty (Proj. by FMP) 307 FTE Staff (Proj. by FMP) 2,532 FTE (Proj. by SUNY IR) 2,582 FTE (Proj. by FMP) 135 FTE Faculty (Proj. by FMP) 321 FTE Staff (Proj. by FMP) 2,566 FTE (Proj. by SUNY IR) 2,686 FTE (Proj. by FMP) 141 FTE Faculty (Proj. by FMP) 334 FTE Staff (Proj. by FMP) SUNY Cobleskill Institutional Research [IR] is projecting 7% FTE enrollment growth through the next planning period, with 2,686 FTE students in 2023. At a departmental level, the greatest enrollment increase (38%) is expected for the School of Agriculture & Natural Resources. This is partly attributed to the addition of the new Alternative Energy program, but significant growth is also projected for Agricultural Business (51%) and Animal Science (41%). Enrollment for the School of Business is projected to increase 5% from 2009 to 2023, driven by growth in Business & Administration (24%) and Culinary Arts (14%). Computer Technology, however, is expected to decrease in enrollment by 42%. The School of Liberal Arts & Sciences expects a marginal decline, with enrollment for Mathematics and Natural Sciences decreasing by 41% and 24% respectively. However, increased enrollment is projected for Early Childhood (20%), Sport, Movement and Exercise (20%) and Social Sciences (12%). Enrollment for Humanities/ Communications/Graphic Design is projected to remain stable out to 2023. FACULTY & STAFF PROJECTIONS Faculty projections were based on overall FTE student to FTE faculty ratios of 19 to 1—a slight decrease in the 2009 ratio of 21%. FTE faculty were then allocated to departments based on student to faculty ratios appropriate for the particular disciplines. The addition of a master’s program, as well as continued growth in research and sponsored programs, especially in Agriculture, can be expected to result in slightly more needed faculty. In addition, the College’s continued emphasis on experiential learning can be expected to decrease the student faculty ratio slightly. Staff projections were based on FTE staff to FTE faculty ratios of 2.37, consistent with the 2009 ratio and resulting in an overall FTE staff increase of 17%. Above average increases in staff were allocated for the support of class and open labs, technology, student life, and facilities support. It is the view of the FMP consultant team that these projections are realistic, achievable and strategically positioned. This is based upon several factors: • • • • Cobleskill IR is projecting very modest growth out to 2023 These enrollment projections dip in 2013 to reflect the middecade decline in state-wide graduation rates Part of this enrollment projection includes the continuing transition of programs from 2-year to 4-year, which will decrease recruitment pressures Academic departments projected for growth generally capitalize on Cobleskill’s strengths in agriculture and related programs Challenges the College will face include increased competition for students from the Downstate region, one of the few areas of the state that will not experience as significant a decline in high school graduation rates as western and central New York. Additional challenges will include uncertain operating and capital investment funding from the State and competition from other SUNY colleges with similar programs in the region. 0 2008 2013 2018 2023 Curent 2008-2013 SUCF funding cycle YEAR 14
SUNY Cobleskill Facilities Master Plan – Phase 5 Report November 2011 CAMPUS PLANNING C C – CAMPUS PLANNING Academic facilities and instructional spaces at SUNY Cobleskill must be realigned and optimized to meet the needs of current and future educational environments. However, the definition of instructional space has become more fluid in recent years. One of the clearest shifts in higher education campus planning is the move away from the notion that learning only happens within typical instructional spaces—in fact, learning happens everywhere. The most successful, and indeed the most competitive higher education environments are those that view all college space as a spectrum of learning environments. This paradigm shift is rooted in major changes in American and Western society that include the: • • • Flattening of social hierarchies Increase of informal interactions Move away from rigid 9-5 work-day schedules Understanding how any campus needs to physically adapt means facilities planning needs to shift just as dramatically. This has been challenging for any public institution, but particularly so for Cobleskill where almost all of the campus is more than 40 years old and State funding has been harder to come by with every year. Institutionally the College has done a solid job in adapting to these changes; it is time for the facilities to catch up. UNDERSTANDING THE LEARNING SPECTRUM The expectation of students now—and of the entire working-age population by 2023—is that learning and working can and will happen anywhere at any time, on demand. Facilities that do not support this expectation will not be able to compete. The spirit of the learning spectrum and the breadth of SUNY’s mission are at the core of “The Power of SUNY: Strategic Plan 2010 & Beyond” and its “Six Big Ideas”: • • • • • • SUNY and the Entrepreneurial Century SUNY and the Seamless Education Pipeline SUNY and a Healthier New York SUNY and an Energy-Smart New York SUNY and the Vibrant Community SUNY and the World Strategies on how Cobleskill’s facilities meet the needs identified in the College’s mission and the System’s state-wide goals inform the FMP’s holistic approach to campus facilities. At the core of this approach is the intentional blurring of social boundaries to align with current pedagogies, highlight the importance of experience-based learning, contemporize space requirements, and structure opportunities for continuous learning. This section outlines: • • • • The broad ranges of these space types Where current thinking is in 2010 Where facilities might be in 2023 The Facilities Master Plan Policy Positions for these space types Key to this is the understanding of traditional or “scheduled instructional environments” and their relationship to “informal instructional environments” such as library, food service, and campus open space environments. • • • Scheduled instructional environments: • Classrooms • Class labs • Lecture halls (traditional and case-methods) Informal instructional environments: • Libraries and learning commons • Food service and amenity areas • Connective areas • Open space and landscape • Residential environments • Office space (administrative and departmental) Health, wellness, and athletic spaces The informal instructional environment category is the most challenging of these. It pushes the definition of what learning is, broadens the recognition of where and how learning happens, and requires a rebalancing between such formal and informal learning environments. Scheduled Instructional Environments The impacts of this shift are most dramatic in instruction delivery which, due to its nature and context, a significant amount of study has been devoted. At its most simplified and tangible, instruction delivery methods have shifted away from rote learning toward project-based and team-based problem solving. This pedagogy is supported with a dramatic increase in curriculum-specific class lab environments—and such shifts in pedagogy underpin the adjustments to the College’s space needs as defined in Phase 3. Facilities have responded with smaller classrooms, furnishings that support peer-to-peer learning, and break-out rooms. Technology is fully integrated and multi-media capabilities are everywhere. Class time has become more flexible and have a greater focus on study that takes place outside of the classroom. Faculty is now expected to be available 24-hours a day via e-mail, instant message, web-chat, social networking sites, etc. The idea of “office hours” is antiquated and facilities need to catch up. The FMP builds upon these trends by realigning direct instructional space towards: • • • • More seminar-style classrooms More class labs across a wide array of departments and programs Greater transparency between spaces for increased visual communication to increase the sense of connectedness Greater deployment of case-method lecture classrooms for undergraduate instruction Additionally, the FMP recommends the right-sizing of general classrooms and lecture halls. This entails shifting classrooms toward larger station sizes with few stations per classroom. Such an effort would also boost overall classroom utilization rates. During the course of the FMP, the College did not arrive on a clear policy position regarding right-sizing classrooms. As such the FMP makes no recommendations beyond a generic distribution of classrooms as found in the Phase 3 report and repeated in this section. Additionally, classroom right-sizing is subject to many variables (such Typical Learning Studio (the traditional classroom is transformed with glazing to interior and exterior environments, more flexible furnishing that support projectbased learning, and extensive multi-media support) 15
Page 1: SUNY Cobleskill SUCF Project No. 24
Page 4 and 5: 5 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ACKNOWLEDGE
Page 6 and 7: 5 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS EXECUTIVE S
Page 8 and 9: 5 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUNY Cobles
Page 10 and 11: 5 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUNY Cobles
Page 12 and 13: ACAMPUS STRATEGIC PLAN A - CAMPUS S
Page 16 and 17: C CAMPUS PLANNING SUNY Cobleskill F
Page 18 and 19: C CAMPUS PLANNING SUNY Cobleskill F
Page 20 and 21: DSPACE NEEDS SUNY Cobleskill Facili
Page 22 and 23: EEXISTING CONDITIONS SUNY Cobleskil
Page 24 and 25: F PROPERTY ACQUISITION F - PROPERTY
Page 26 and 27: GCOMMUNITY ISSUES SUNY Cobleskill F
Page 28 and 29: J LANDSCAPE PLAN SUNY Cobleskill Fa
Page 30 and 31: KRECOMMENDATIONS SUNY Cobleskill Fa
Page 44 and 45: COLOR BY ACCOUNT CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Page 46 and 47: BUILDINGS-ST KRECOMMENDATIONS SUNY
Page 52 and 53: COLOR BY ACCOUNT BUILDINGS-STRUCTUR
Page 54 and 55: COLOR BY ACCOUNT ASSEMBLY & EXHIBIT
Page 60 and 61: COLOR BY ACCOUNT BUILDINGS-STRUCTUR
Page 64 and 65:
KRECOMMENDATIONS SUNY Cobleskill Fa
Page 66 and 67:
KRECOMMENDATIONS SUNY Cobleskill Fa
Page 68 and 69:
L DEMOLITION SUNY Cobleskill Facili
Page 70 and 71:
NGREENING SUNY Cobleskill Facilitie
Page 72 and 73:
OSUMMARY OF 2023 NEEDS MET SUNY Cob
Page 74 and 75:
P CRITICAL PATH & PHASING DRAFT Hyb
Page 76 and 77:
P CRITICAL PATH & PHASING 20 20 20
Page 78 and 79:
Q SURGE SPACE Q - SURGE SPACE SUNY
Page 80 and 81:
RCOST ESTIMATE SUNY Cobleskill Faci
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
show all

Part 5: Final Recommendation - SUNY Cobleskill

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?