Reimagining Academic Affairs

• Timeline Details

  Phase One: Reimagining Special Action Team (SAT) Work (August 27th–December 13th, 2024)

  The Special Action Team (SAT) engaged in analysis and dialogue to develop initial recommendations for reshaping Chico State’s academic structure. These recommendations were presented to the Provost on December 13th. Phase Two of this initiative started in January 2025.

  Phase Two: Provost and PAC+ Work

  Following the SAT's recommendations, the Provost and Provost’s Advisory Council including associate deans (PAC+) reviewed the proposed changes, made additional recommendations, and prepared for broad campus input.

  Round One: Campus and Community Engagement (February 2025)

  The first round of engagement invited students, faculty, staff, and community partners to offer feedback on initial ideas and priorities through expos and surveys. Based on that feedback, the Provost and PAC+ made additional revisions and recommendations to present to the campus and community. 

  • February 11 11:00 - 12:30 Selvester's 100
  • February 18 1:00 - 2:30 Selvester's 100
  • February 24 1:00 - 2:00 Selvester's 100 - Students only
  • February 24 2:00 - 3:30 Selvester's 100
  • March 3 2:00 - 3:30 Selvester's 100
    • Watch the Town Hall here(opens in new window)

  Round Two: Campus and Community Engagement (April 2025)

  A second round of engagement followed, providing a refined set of options for further input, and allowed the campus community to provide additional feedback.  
  

  • Tuesday, March 25, 9-10 a.m. Round 2 Launch
    • Watch video here(opens in new window)
  • Monday, April 7, 1–2:30 p.m. Open to students, faculty, and staff in Selvester's 100 
  • Tuesday, April 8, 1–2:30 p.m. Open to students, faculty, and staff in Selvester's 100 
  • Tuesday, April 8, 4– 5:30 p.m. Students-only session in Selvester's 100 
  • Wednesday, April 9, 5:30–6:30 p.m. Students-only session in Colusa 100

  Wrapping up Spring 2025 and Moving Forward

  Provost Cornick and her leadership team will take the month of May to analyze and synthesize the feedback from Round 2. A summary, created with support from ChatGPT EDU, will be posted on the Reimagine website.

  Building on the conversations from this year, we will continue campus conversations in the fall with new opportunities for engagement across departments, student organizations, and staff groups.

  Any proposals for structural changes will be submitted as described in EM 22-013 (PDF) and will follow the Academic Senate consultation process.

• Round 2 Potential Academic Models Overview

  As part of Round 2 in the Academic Affairs Reimagining process, we shared two potential College Models and one Academic Affairs Administration Model (PDF) for review and feedback. These Round 2 models build on the input received during the first round of engagement and represent continued efforts to design a structure that supports our academic mission, promotes collaboration, and aligns with institutional priorities.

  Get Involved
  We have completed all of the Expo's for this round, but we encourage you to discuss the models within your departments, teams, and colleagues, watch the Launch Event recording above, and share your feedback via email or the survey which will remain open through April 30. Your input will continue to shape and refine the models as we move forward in this process.

• Round 1 Potential Academic Models Overview

  In Round 1 we presented three potential academic models (PDF) for the future structure of our institution:

  Model 1: Traditional College-Based Approach

  • Reduces colleges from seven to five
  • Thematic for regional relevance
  • Maintains current college/department model

  Model 2: Mixed Approach

  • Reduces colleges from seven to four
  • Thematic for regional relevance
  • Clusters professional schools
  • Removes chairs at school-level

  Model 3: Divisional Approach

  • Divisional deans oversee school clusters
  • School directors oversee personnel and schedules
  • Faculty Leads support curriculum, faculty, and students
  • Removes departments
  • Administrative support and advising through divisional shared services
  • Increased opportunities for staff development

  In this round, we invited the campus community to consider where their discipline, program, or work resonated within these models.

  In addition to the academic models, we also presented two potential approaches for structuring the non-college units and the Provost’s office. For a deeper dive into these models, watch this video where Provost Cornick presented the models in more detail. You can review the summary of the Round 1 survey feedback here (PDF).

• Reimagining Provost FAQs

  Why is this initiative happening now?

  • We’re undertaking the Reimagining initiative to ensure Chico State academics can adapt to changing student needs, regional demographics, national and state enrollment challenges, and other cross-cutting trends in higher education. Our University structure dates back more than 30 years, and we are overdue for a critical examination of how well it is meeting existing needs. We need a structure that serves the students of today, as well as those 10 and 20 years from now. We as an institution and our students are vastly different than who we were at our enrollment peak and before the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as when some of these structures were designed in the 20th century. While we can't predict who we will become, we should adjust to who we are now.

  Is this initiative financially driven?

  • As the entire University evaluates efficient resource management, a realignment would likely bring opportunities to reduce costs, as it emphasizes resource efficiencies and aligns our academic structure with our current size and anticipated future. The largest savings will likely come from a reduced number of MPP III and MPP IV positions.  Savings might also be found in centralizing administrative services and eliminating redundancies.  The Provost's presentation (PDF) in the March 3 Town Hall gave a broad overview of potential savings, and the Expos in Phase 2 will include detailed budgetary projections. We are also mitigating the cost of inaction with this work as we look to future proof against national trends. That said, budget is just one motivator. Reimagining also holds great potential to enhance our interdisciplinary engagement between areas of teaching and research, and uplift our career pathways for our students and our region.

  What are we doing to cut spending while the Reimagining process takes place? 

  • Deans and department chairs have been working diligently to improve efficiencies across multiple domains, including class scheduling, frequency of offerings, optimizing class sizes, reducing assigned weighted teaching units (AWTU), faculty additional employment, non-essential travel, operating expenses, and not backfilling some positions. Deans received a charge letter at the end of the fall semester to perform audits and make recommendations for student-to-faculty ratios, course caps, AWTU, supervision courses, faculty additional employment, and service assignments to find additional efficiencies, identify inequities, and develop consistent practices.

  How are students involved in the work of Reimagining?

  • Three students served on the Special Action Team whose work in fall 2024 informed the first iteration of potential organizational models. Since then, Provost Cornick has consulted with the Student Academic Senate and several student clubs.  A students-only Expo was held on February 24th, which generated valuable feedback both from surveys and live comments. Two additional students-only sessions will be held on April 8thand 9th. Student groups are also encouraged to invite Provost Cornick to their meetings for more focused discussion.

  How are staff involved in the work of Reimagining?

  • Four staff members served on the Special Action Team, which was co-chaired by a staff member. Many staff have already participated in Expos and surveys, and the Provost met with Staff Council in March for more focused discussion. All employees are encouraged to share feedback with the Provost via email or during her office hours.

  Are any majors being eliminated as part of this process?

  • No. The Reimagining initiative is focused on organizational structures, not curriculum, which is in the purview of the faculty. If adopted, new college configurations may invite innovative cross-disciplinary opportunities, but students’ current degree programs will not be affected.

  When will these changes be implemented?

  • Beginning in fall 2025, the Provost will provide a complete proposal to the campus community as described in EM 22-013 (PDF) to initiate the Academic Senate consultation process. Depending on the complexity of changes, full realization of the new organizational structure will likely take two to three semesters.

  The Special Action Team report recommended that departments/units be able to choose college affiliation after any reorganization. Will that recommendation be adopted? 

  • Considering this recommendation, the models presented in Phase 1 did not assign departments to proposed colleges or schools. Professor Michael Coons has proposed creating an affinity network of Chico State faculty that would allow individuals to indicate their scholarly connections with colleagues, establishing nodes and clusters of disciplinary and inter-disciplinary connection. This project might help inform the final configuration of colleges and support departments to explore possible mergers or realignments. The Provost is also meeting with the Chairs’ Council Executive Committee to engage department chairs in considering how departments might be configured and aligned under a new structure. 

  Is the proposed project by Coons and Trailer a new Reimagine model from the Academic Senate?

  • This proposed project is neither a new model nor is it an Academic Senate sponsored project. This project is data collection only. It is about creating a data structure that gives a snapshot of the current faculty scholarship areas and connections. The intent is to better understand our collective scholarship and to help us visualize our shared strengths and connections.

    This project is being spearheaded by professors Coons and Trailer, who are active members of the Academic Senate, but who nonetheless are acting as autonomous faculty members in the spirit of our Community Agreements that encourage a commitment "to using our collective expertise, advanced technology, and best practices to ensure we foster supportive working conditions that serve the University mission".

    Coons and Trailer are lobbying the administration to use this data structure to ensure that the collective scholarship and connections of our faculty are not lost in any potential changes to our academic organization.

Special Action Team (SAT)

• Charge letter

  [Accessible PDF version (PDF)]

  August 27, 2024

  Greetings Reimagining Special Action Team!

  Thank you again for your enthusiasm in reimagining the future of Chico State’s academic identity and structures. This critical work will help us forge a new path to a robust, vibrant, and sustainable future.

  Charge

  Through a process of investigation, dialogue, and sustained campus engagement, the Special Action Team is charged with developing 2-3 comprehensive recommendations for restructuring academic units in service to our mission, which should be grounded in key aspects of our current challenges and animated by opportunities for continuous improvement.

  Your work should be informed by the following understandings: the changing enrollment landscape, our majority minority and first-generation student population, service to our region, positioning Chico State as forward-facing and academically distinctive, and reflective of our role as the regional comprehensive liberal arts and sciences university of the North State.

  Considerations

  Your primary focus will be on the academic program structure, not the curriculum, although some conversations may naturally emerge around this area.

  I encourage you to think outside the box. There is no "right” number of colleges; in fact, you may recommend a structure with no colleges at all.

  Your recommendations should foster student-centeredness, innovation and creativity, and interdisciplinarity. They should be equity-minded, regionally relevant, and showcase Chico State as a destination campus.

  We want the rest of the CSU to say, "Wow, look at what Chico did!"

  
  First Steps
  As part of the agenda for your first meeting, you should:
  • Select a chair whose role will include working with Holly and Khadish on logistics, administering surveys, and providing regular reports to the Provost.
  • Schedule weekly 2-hour meetings, endeavoring to find a time that most members can attend. Regular attendance is expected; if a team member must miss more than three meetings, please consult the chair and Holly.

  Consultation
  Input from campus constituencies and external partners is a critical component of this work. This may entail, but is not limited to, surveys, listening sessions, focus groups, etc. The Provost's office will assist with these logistics.

  
  While I will not directly participate in your meetings or discussions, I will be available as needed, including regular meetings with the chair as necessary.

  Deliverables
  • Monthly Executive summary of meetings (with action items and owners), activities, summary of consultations (with themes and/or trends), etc.
  • Meet with the Provost Nov 13. (time TBD) to plan for final recommendations
  • Final summary report with 2-3 comprehensive recommendations due December 13.

  Thank you again – I look forward to the future we will build together for Chico State as a result of your important work and creativity!

  
  Go Wildcats!!

• Team
  • Tiffani Anderson, Chemistry and Biochemistry
  • Shawn Brackett, College of Communication and Education
  • Cindy Daley, College of Agriculture
  • Jesse Engebretson, Recreation, Hospitality, and Parks Management
  • Emily Fleming, Biological Sciences
  • Eli Goodsell, Big Chico Creek Ecological Reserve
  • Aishu Gowda, AS Director of Social Justice and Equity
  • Nathan Heggins Bryant, English
  • Ben Juliano, Computer Science
  • Dev Kachiwala, AS Director of Academic Affairs
  • David Leonard, Multicultural and Gender Studies
  • Rachel McBride-Praetorius, Tribal Relations
  • Matthew Meuter, Marketing
  • Rachel Middleman, Art and Art History
  • Rebecca Nelson, Faculty Development
  • William Nitzky, Anthropology
  • Tal Slemrod, School of Education
  • Christian Sullivan, AS President
  • Zanja Yudell, Philosophy

  Special thanks to Holly Ferguson for providing administrative support.

• Campus Engagement Summary 

  [Accessible PDF version (PDF)]

  In October and November 2024, the Special Action Team (SAT) conducted listening sessions and surveys and received input from Chico State employees and partners. Feedback from these sources reveals a complex mix of appreciation for our existing strengths; a desire for a more collaborative, equitable, and student-centered university; and anxiety about the unknowns of restructuring.  

  With limited time and a charge from the Provost to deliver recommendations by mid-December, the team read and analyzed each dataset and used Google NotebookLM, a generative AI/language model tool that helps users analyze and process information from multiple sources to assess feedback from our campus community. Using NotebookLM our analytics subcommittee analyzed data from all 17 listening sessions (including summary notes from SAT members and transcripts from all sessions (n=279)), two surveys (n=114), and feedback provided to SAT in the way of prepared documents, statements, or shared reports to answer the following prompt for all data sources: “What key points and themes emerge from the sources?”. The prompt generated five sets of common themes across the data. We reviewed the five sets of common themes NotebookLM found and summarized these as general takeaways.   

  Access to NotebookLM is currently restricted to personal Google accounts only. 

  Strengths of Existing Programs

  Participants frequently emphasized the strengths and achievements of their respective units:  

  • Hands-on Learning and Experiential Opportunities: Hands-on learning opportunities, including internships, field experiences, and community engagement were seen as key strengths.
  • Faculty Expertise: Respondents consistently identified strong faculty expertise as a key strength across departments.
  • Strong Programs: Units consistently spotlighted their successful programs, pointing to accreditation, high placement rates, and national recognition.
  • Existing Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Several units highlighted their existing collaborative efforts with other departments and colleges.  

  Student Needs and Experiences  

  Participants consistently stressed the importance of keeping student needs and experiences at the center of any restructuring decisions:  

  • Understanding Evolving Student Needs: Participants highlighted the need for increased flexibility, mental health support, career preparation resources, and a strong sense of community.
  • Providing Holistic Support: Participants called for a more holistic approach to student support, including adequate academic advising, mental health services, financial assistance, and support for diverse student populations.
  • Improve Advising and Support Services: Participants identified challenges with current advising and support services, particularly for online and distance education students.
  • Enhance Career Preparation and Connections: Participants emphasized equipping students with the skills and experiences needed for career success.  

  Desire for Collaboration and Efficiency  

  Participants desired a more collaborative, efficient, and equitable university structure:  

  • Enhanced Collaboration and Interdisciplinarity: Participants identified several barriers to collaboration, including administrative hurdles, lack of resources, and siloed departmental structures. Suggestions for improvement included streamlining processes and procedures, providing resources and incentives, and improving communication.
  • Improve Administrative Efficiency: Participants called for streamlining procedures, reducing duplication of efforts, and investing in technology to improve efficiency.
  • Promote Equity: Participants demanded fair workload distribution, equitable resource allocation, and representation of diverse perspectives in decision-making.  

  Anxiety and Uncertainty Regarding Restructuring  

  Our analysis revealed a pervasive sense of anxiety, uncertainty, and distrust among faculty and staff regarding the restructuring process:  

  • Lack of Clarity and Transparency: Participants repeatedly voiced frustration with the vagueness of the Provost’s charge letter that informed the work of the SAT and highlighted the lack of clearly defined goals for the restructuring process.
  • Fear of Negative Impacts: Specific concerns included potential job losses, program cuts, loss of unit identity, disruption of existing successes, and negative impacts on morale and campus climate.
  • Lack of Articulated Vision and Rationale: Participants routinely asked questions about the ultimate purpose and desired outcomes of the restructuring process.  

  Additional Themes  

  Feedback from listening sessions, surveys and other sources revealed additional areas for improvement:  

  • Accessibility: Students are seeking increased accessibility across campus, including accessible furniture, universal design in courses, and more resources to support students with disabilities. Participants also highlighted the need for mixed modality in course offerings, including maintenance of in-person classes and a bolstering of hybrid and online course offerings and programs.
  • Collaboration and Support: Participants expressed a need for greater collaboration between departments and units, increased communication and support from faculty, and more personalized spaces on campus.
  • Funding and Resources: Participants highlighted the need for increased funding and resources to support student learning, including library resources and staffing levels.
  • Reorganization and Restructuring: The feedback suggested several areas where reorganization and restructuring could improve the university's functioning, including clearer communication channels, greater flexibility in staffing, and a re-evaluation of faculty workload expectations. 
• Survey

  We created a survey to collect information from our campus constituents that contributed to the development of 2-3 comprehensive recommendations for restructuring academic units. Your responses helped provide a greater understanding of how to foster reimagining the future of Chico State’s academic identity and structures. This survey was a critical step in listening and acknowledging concerns and opportunities and understanding our campus community’s needs, interests, strengths, and vision for the future.

  A survey based on the prompts from our listening sessions was available until Wednesday, November 20th @ 11:59pm for additional feedback. The survey has now closed.

• Listening sessions

  Listening sessions were opportunities for the Special Action Team to hear your thoughts, ideas, questions, and concerns. We scheduled 3 sessions for campus constituents and 1 session for external constituents; 2 in-person and 2 online. Sessions were automatically transcribed using Otter. We also provided the option for constituent groups to request special listening sessions between October 14th and November 20th.

  We heard from 279 constituents overall—thank you for your time, energy, and thoughtfulness. The listening sessions have concluded for this phase of engagement.

  Scheduled listening sessions

  • October 14th @ 11am-1pm (in-person, CLSA 100, 41 campus constituents)
  • October 25th @ 11am-1pm (online, Zoom, 42 campus constituents)
  • October 29th @ 4pm-6pm (in-person, CLSA 100, 14 campus constituents)
  • October 30th @ 8am-10am (online, Zoom, 11 external constituents: advisory boards, community members, partners, etc.)

  Special listening sessions

  • October 18th @ 9:30am-10:30am (in-person, CLSA 100B, 35 members of Chairs Council)
  • October 23rd @ 5pm-6pm (online, Zoom, 3 Agriculture External Partners)
  • November 1st @ 9am-10am (in-person, FAMC 106, 14 University Farm Staff)
  • November 1st @ 12pm-1pm (in-person, BSS 107, 14 members of Political Science and Criminal Justice)
  • November 6th @ 9am-10am (in-person, SSC 306, 18 members of International Education and Global Engagement)
  • November 7th @ 9am-10am (in-person, BSS 333, 12 department chairs from the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences)
  • November 8th @ 8:30am-9:30am (hybrid, MLIB 459, 10 members of the Faculty Development Advisory Board)
  • November 8th @ 10am-11am (in-person, SELV 104, 13 members of Graduate Council and Graduate Education)
  • November 13th @ 9am-10am (in-person, CLSA 115, 11 members of Online and Distributed Learning)
  • November 13th @ 4pm-5pm (in-person, BSS 333, 9 members of Health and Human Services Task Force)
  • November 18th @ 10am-11am (in-person, MLIB 226, 12 members of Meriam Library)
  • November 19th @ 9:30am-10:30am (in-person, SSC 206, 9 members of Accessibility Resource Center)
  • November 20th @ 4pm-5pm (in-person AYRS 201, 11 members of College of Humanities and Fine Arts)

  Prompts for discussion (October 14th-24th)

  1. Why do you think students come to your unit/college/department/program, and what do they gravitate towards?
  2. How does your unit/college/department/program contribute to students’ education and professional development?
  3. What are the strengths of your department and/or program? How should we build on those strengths to position Chico State as forward-facing and academically distinctive?
  4. What opportunities for collaboration do you see within your unit/college/department/program?
  5. What challenges and/or concerns for collaboration do you see within your unit/college/department/program?
  6. Where do you see future cross-disciplinary opportunities that currently do not exist across the university?
  7. From the standpoint of work and workload, what are some areas that seem most in need of reorganization within your unit/college/department/program? And, what do you feel those changes would accomplish?

  Prompts for discussion (October 25th-November 20th)

  1. What makes your unit/college/department/program unique and distinctive?
  2. What are the key strengths of your unit/college/department/program?
  3. What are students seeking in your unit/department /programs/college?
  4. Have the needs of students changed over the past few years (pre- and post-COVID) in your unit/department/programs/college?
  5. How can your unit/department /program/college improve on satisfying what students seek now?
  6. What units/colleges/departments/programs do you work most closely with and in what ways?
  7. What are some ways the university could provide opportunities and/or remove barriers for greater collaboration across units/colleges/departments/programs?
  8. Where do you see future cross-disciplinary opportunities that currently do not exist across the university?
  9. From the standpoint of work and workload,what are some areas that seem most in need of reorganization within your unit/college/department/program? And, what do you feel those changes would accomplish?
  10. How would you suggest the academic units of the university be reimagined or restructured?
  11. OPEN: Do you have any additional comments or feedback?
• FAQ
  What was the purpose of the listening sessions?

  • To hear ideas, questions, and concerns about the organizational structure of Academic Affairs at Chico State from faculty, students, staff, and external partners. We used a common agenda to provide a fair opportunity to share feedback across all listening sessions. To our best knowledge, we are the only campus with a special action team that actively hosted listening sessions to provide feedback toward making direct recommendations to the Provost.

  How did the Special Action Team (SAT) use the information gathered from the listening sessions to make recommendations?

  • At least three SAT members attended each listening session to take notes that were paired with automated transcripts from Zoom and/or Otter to combine human perspectives with digital tools. The listening session notes and survey question responses were recorded for thematic analysis. In addition to the listening sessions and survey questions, we actively researched academic structure models to better understand how higher education is structured across the CSU and beyond. We will use the analysis and research to make recommendations.

  How many listening sessions were hosted?

  • Four (4) scheduled listening sessions and thirteen (13) special listening sessions  

  What will happen after the Special Action Team (SAT) makes recommendations to the Provost?

  • Final recommendations from the SAT will be posted to this website. Please see the timeline at the top of this page for further details.