Presented for Information to the Twin Cities Campus Assembly on May 14, 1998

1. Create a Coordinator for classroom management

Appoint, designate, or hire a single individual who will be responsible for the coordination of the management of the entire scope of these recommendations. This person would be responsible for coordinating the activities of the units currently involved in classroom management activities, should be given authority over all aspects of classroom management so that s/he can make a final decision if consensus between the coordinated units is not achievable, must have sufficient budget to accomplish the tasks of classroom management, will report to the Office of the Executive Vice-President and Provost, and should be focused on classroom management and not fragmented by additional duties at the University. For this position to be effective, it is critical that the individual in it be included in all discussions about classroom management issues. The Office of the Executive Vice-President and Provost is responsible for creating and filling this position and should report back to the Senate Committee on Finance and Planning on its progress. Target date for having this Coordinator in place is July 1, 1998.

2. Create an advisory mechanism

Develop a mechanism within SCEP and Facilities Management Subcommittee to provide advice to the Coordinator on issues concerning classroom management. Rather than develop a parallel system for input into classroom management issues, the current governance structure should be used. Because issues range from educational policy to facilities management to finance and planning, SCEP and Facilities Management Subcommittee (which reports to the Senate Committee on Finance and Planning) appear to be the best candidates for this responsibility. It is likely that both committees will need to devise a mechanism to get appropriate input from faculty, staff, and students that exceeds that possible from the membership of their committee. For example, to ensure appropriate input into design standards for technology upgrades, representatives from Media Resources, Information Technology, and departments/colleges already heavily invested in technology should be part of a working group providing input, advice, and counsel. To insure that this advisory system provides feedback in a timely manner, the Coordinator (mentioned in recommendation #1 above) should be an ex officio, non-voting member of each Senate committee. Target date for having mechanism in place is October 1, 1998.

3. Train faculty to use technology

Develop a systematic method of training faculty to use the technology that is or will be placed in classrooms. Establish a program to train faculty to use both existing and future technological equipment. This program should include broad training for the development of presentation materials that maximize the potential of the technology and enhance the student learning experience and specific training relating to the equipment in specific classrooms. Some of this already exists (e.g., within the Digital Media Center and Room Scheduling), but it is currently inadequate for our needs. This program may be assigned to an existing office but is to be overseen by the Coordinator. It should be noted that the broad training should be provided on an on-going basis during the year, but the specific training is likely to be concentrated at times before the academic term begins as faculty prepare to use specific assigned classrooms. Target date for a pilot program is September 1, 1998. Full implementation target date is August 1, 1999.

4. Establish an immediate contact system

Develop an immediate-response classroom help/support service to respond to maintenance, support, and service issues encountered by faculty and instructors in their daily classroom use. A central contact point should be established for all classroom problem calls. (This does not preclude local/regional support activities.) Target date for implementation is September 1, 1998.

5. Consider reorganization

Consider reorganization of the various units involved in all aspects of classroom management. It may be structurally more efficient for the various groups involved in room scheduling, maintenance, repair, upgrade, training, response, etc. to be organized in a different way. This should be studied. Target date for recommendation from such a study is July 1, 1999.

6. Define standards

Provide a base-line quality standard and define a higher level of support service for users of classroom technology that promotes the use of effective, appropriate technology for instruction and learning in the classroom. These standards can be used to improve the quality of the existing facility to support the learning modalities of today. They should be based on the types of classrooms generally in existence at the University and similar institutions of higher education. Some initial work is available in the 1995 Classroom Study, so this should be used as a starting point for discussion. Implementation target date is March 1, 1999.

7. Provide a plan and adequate funding to implement and maintain standards

Upgrade all University classrooms to the defined baseline of quality. Establish and fund a five-year capital improvement program to achieve this objective. This recommendation was put on a 5 year time frame in the 1995 study. The Capital and Supplemental Requests will make an impact on this recommendation, so it should be reviewed now that the legislative budget process is complete. Target date November 1, 1999.

• Fund the improvement of all classrooms to an acceptable level of physical condition and functional capability.
• Maintain all classrooms at the defined baseline of upgraded quality to ensure they remain in acceptable condition.
• Make a parallel funding commitment for management and operations, to ensure these classrooms are fully utilized.

Establish and fund a five-year capital improvement program to broaden the availability and upgrade the quality of educational technology and related resources in classrooms. Target date November 1, 1999.

• Develop a systematic method of upgrading technology in classrooms to enhance teaching.
• Develop a strategic plan for technology enhancement that will provide cost-efficient access to classroom technology as needs of collegiate programs dictate.
• Develop a comprehensive program for improvements, funding, service, support and training to maximize the use and value of these resources.

Increase and stabilize the level of funding for the maintenance, repair, and operational support for classroom technological equipment. This funding should exist in normal allocations, not be add-ons to the budget as in the current Legislative Request. Target date July 1, 2000.

Develop a road map to the future by initiating a process to explore and develop innovative new learning environment models. New classroom models will need to be created to take advantage of new information technology and the evolution of teaching methods coming from new discoveries about how learning occurs. New types of classrooms, more responsive to evolving needs, will supplant current classrooms over time. Target date December 1, 1999.

8. Monitor the progress of the following recommendations from the 1995 Classroom Study which are already in progress. Coordinator, along with Advisory Group, should make new recommendations as appropriate. Target date for initial review is November 1, 1998.

Automation of scheduling

This is in process, but should be monitored for effectiveness.

Upgrade Maintenance and Housekeeping Services

The 1995 Study recommended an increase in the level of funding for the maintenance and repair of classrooms, rescheduling of the majority of maintenance and repair and housekeeping services delivery to non-class hours, and upgrading of the standard of maintenance / housekeeping service. The progress of these recommendations needs to be reviewed.

Utilization Policy

The 1995 Classroom study recommended weekly room hour usage goals of 32 hours per week based on 45 daytime hours per week with a station utilization of 65 percent be established. It also suggested that there was an excess of classrooms based on these recommended standards. These standards should be reviewed as the University converts to semesters, with new policies and standards adopted as necessary so that the classroom need and supply are balanced. Once these are adopted, steps must be taken to ensure that both policies and standards are clearly understood and followed. A recommendation to reduce or increase the number of classrooms may be a result of this review.

9. Review or reconsider the following recommendations from the 1995 Classroom Study for validity and accuracy. Two recommendations in the 1995 Classroom Study (to centralize scheduling of all classrooms and to evaluate utilization of meeting and conference rooms) are controversial and should be reviewed to determine if the University community wishes to address these items. If yes, the Coordinator, along with Advisory Group, should initiate the discussion. Target date for initial review of the recommendations (not suggesting that any action will result from this review) is January 1, 1999.

Background:

One focus of the Facilities Management Subcommittee this year was Classrooms and Classroom Management. For discussion of this issue, additional members of the University community were brought together with subcommittee members. These additional members represented units of the University that are involved in classroom management (e.g. Room Scheduling/Registrar, Facilities Management, Media Resources, etc.)

The ensuing discussions, and these recommendations, focused on the Twin Cities campus' general-purpose classrooms that are currently centrally scheduled. While many of the recommendations highlight technology in the classroom, it was understood by the members of the discussion group that general purpose classrooms must serve a large variety of teaching and learning styles and that rooms need to be flexible to support these different styles.

These recommendations were unanimously approved by the Senate Committee on Finance and Planning on April 28, 1998.