Executive Summary
As part of the strategic reorganization of OSU, we propose to merge the Department of Crop
and Soil Science (CSS) and the Department of Horticulture (HORT) into a School of Integrated
Plant, Soil, and Insect Science (IPSI).This merger will combine the strengths of two strong,
nationally recognized OSU programs to create a new entity that can achieve national and
international recognition. We will have unique capability in cropping systems, plant breeding
and genetics, ecological landscape design and management, and high value horticultural crops
research, extension and teaching. We will have a statewide footprint in county-based
extension and research activities involving commercial growers, small farmers and the urban
public. We will have state of the art educational programs that combine traditional students
with practitioners to give “hands-on” experiences in every class. The Proposed Classification of
Instructional Programs (CIP) number is 011199.
As soon as possible after our CAT I proposal is approved , IPSI will offer an undergraduate
degree of Integrated Plant, Soil, and Insect Sciences with options in Agronomy, General
Horticulture (via Ecampus), Plant Breeding and Technology, Sustainable Horticulture
Production, Viticulture and Enology, Ecological Landscapes and Urban Forestry, Turf
Management, Therapeutic Horticulture, Soil Science, and Insect Biology and Management.
Undergraduates will be offered a minor in Integrated Plant, Soil, and Insect Science. IPSI will
continue to offer graduate majors in Crop Science, Horticulture, and Soil Science. Graduate
minors will be offered in Crop Science, Horticulture, Soil Science, and Entomology. Over the
next five years, it is expected that the number of undergraduates and graduates completing a
degree in IPSI will remain constant at about 48 and 19, respectively.
CSS and HORT are two of Oregon State University’s largest academic units. The CSS faculty is
housed in four on-campus buildings, at Eastern Oregon University (EOU), in thirteen counties,
and at fiveOSU Experiment Stations across Oregon. The Horticulture faculty has programs in 28
of the 36 Oregon counties, at four branch stations, and on the Corvallis campus. Professorial
and professional faculty, classified staff, and graduate students conduct research, teaching,
extension and service activities within Oregon, across the United States, and around the world.
Through statewide research, extension, and teaching programs, CSS and HORT faculty are
directly involved with nursery and greenhouse, field, forage, fruit and nut, seed, and
vegetablecrops that account for 75% of Oregon’s $4.1 billion agricultural industry.
All activities in IPSI will be fully integrated across the three land grant missions – teaching,
research, and extension. There will be two full-time administrative School directors who will
have responsibility for overall School leadership and management. These individuals will work
on all issues cooperatively but each will take the lead for certain aspects of IPSI. There will be
an Executive Council that represents all faculty and staff in IPSI and that will make major policy
and directional decisions.
PROPOSAL TO CREATE A SCHOOL OF INTEGRATED PLANT, SOIL, AND INSECT SCIENCE BY
MERGING THE DEPARTMENTS OF CROPS AND SOIL SCIENCE AND HORTICULTURE
Oregon State University
College of Agricultural Sciences
CPS Tracking #: 81957
April 2011
1. Program Description
a. Proposed Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) number: 011199
CIP # 011199
Title: Plant Sciences, Other
Definition: Any instructional program in plant sciences not listed above.
(Source: US Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, CIP 2010 ed.)
b. Program Overview: brief overview (1-2 paragraphs) of the proposed program, including its
disciplinary foundations and connections; program objectives; programmatic focus; degree,
certificate, minor, and concentrations offered.
As part of the strategic reorganization of OSU, we propose to merge the Department of Crop and
Soil Science (CSS) and the Department of Horticulture (HORT) into a School of Integrated Plant, Soil,
and Insect Science (IPSI).
MERGE
•
Department of Crop and Soil Science (CIP # 011102) and the Department of
Horticulture (CIP # 011103)
NEW
• Academic Unit: School of Integrated Plant, Soil, and Insect Science (CIP #011199)
in the College of Agricultural Sciences
• Degree: BS in Integrated Plant, Soil and Insect Science (CIP # 011199)
• Options:
o Agronomy
o Ecological Landscapes and Urban Forestry
o General Horticulture (Ecampus)
o Insect Biology and Management
o Plant Breeding and Technology
o Soil Science
o Ecological and Sustainable Horticulture Production
o Therapeutic Horticulture
o Turf Management
o Viticulture and Enology
• Minors:
o Integrated Plant, Soil, and Insect Science
1
CONTINUE (Unchanged)
•
Graduate Degree Programs
o MS, MAgr, PhD in Crop Science
o MS, MAgr, PhD in Horticulture
o MS, MAgr, PhD in Soil Science
o Graduate minors
o Crop Science
o Horticulture
o Soil Science
o Entomology
TERMINATE
•
•
•
•
Departments
o Department of Crop and Soil Science (CIP # 011102)
o Department of Horticulture (CIP # 011103)
Course Designators
o CSS “Crop and Soil Science”
o HORT “Horticulture”
Options
o Crop Management
o Soil Resource Management
o Ecological and Sustainable Horticultural Production
o Environmental Landscape
o General Horticulture
o Horticultural Communication
o Horticultural Research
o Therapeutic Horticulture
o Turf Management
o Viticulture and Enology
Undergraduate Minors
o Crop Science
o Soil Science
MOVE
•
All degree programs (undergraduate and graduate) and courses from the two
departments to the proposed new school; including majors, options, minors
(undergraduate and graduate), and areas of concentration
COURSE DESIGNATORS
•
IPSI is proposed as the new course designator
PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE
•
2
Winter Term 2012
CSS and HORT are two of Oregon State University’s largest academic units (Appendix 1 a and
b). The CSS faculty is housed in four on-campus buildings, at Eastern Oregon University
(EOU), in thirteen counties, and at five OSU Experiment Stations across Oregon. The
Horticulture faculty has programs in 28 of the 36 Oregon counties, at four branch stations,
and on the Corvallis campus. Professorial and professional faculty, classified staff, and
graduate students conduct research, teaching, extension and service activities within
Oregon, across the United States, and around the world. Through statewide research,
extension, and teaching programs, CSS and HORT faculty are directly involved with nursery
and greenhouse, field, forage, fruit and nut, seed, and vegetable crops that account for 75%
of Oregon’s $4.1 billion agricultural industry. HORT faculty members also work with
Oregon’s landscape and turf industries, and Master and community gardeners. Emphasis is
placed on designing, constructing, and managing community and private landscapes with
appropriate ornamental, native and food plants that provide ecosystem services for homes,
cities, municipalities, watersheds, parks, golf courses, gardens and arboreta, streamside
gardens, restoration sites, green roofs and bioswales. Soils faculty do extensive work with
the Natural Resource Conservation Service, US Forest Service and other federal agencies.
Many other faculty members work with soil and water conservation groups across the state.
The two departments also house the majority of the small farms faculty who work with
commercial small farm entrepreneurs, as well as non-commercial small acreage landowners
in urban, peri-urban, and rural communities. In addition to land stewardship, the team
addresses alternative and specialty marketing through creation and enhancement of local
and regional food systems, and farm direct marketing channels.
Some may ask why two large departments should be merged. The answer is that while this
merger will create new challenges in management and require exploration of new modes of
faculty interaction in order to maintain a desired level of faculty governance, the merger will
combine the strengths of two strong, nationally recognized OSU programs to create a new
entity that can achieve national and international recognition. We will have unique
capability in cropping systems, plant breeding and genetics, ecological landscape design and
management, and high value horticultural crops research, extension and teaching. We will
have a statewide footprint in county-based extension and research activities involving
commercial growers, small farmers and the urban public. We will have state of the art
educational programs that combine traditional students with practitioners to give “handson” experiences in every class. More detail on the outcomes of this merger is given in the
following paragraphs. The organization chart for IPSI can be found in figure 1.
OSU has the following mission statement: “As a Land Grant institution committed to
teaching, research, and outreach and engagement, Oregon State University promotes
economic, social, cultural, and environmental progress for the people of Oregon, the nation
3
and the world. This mission is achieved by producing graduates competitive in the global
economy, supporting a continuous search for new knowledge and solutions, and maintaining
a rigorous focus on academic excellence, particularly in the three Signature Areas: Advancing
the Science of Sustainable Earth Ecosystems; Improving Human Health and Wellness; and
Promoting Economic Growth and Social Progress.” IPSI will support the missions of OSU and
the College of Agricultural Sciences through its commitment to acquire, synthesize, and
disseminate basic and applied knowledge, will serve as a model, and further enhance the
integration of research, extension, and teaching statewide in matters related to sustainable
field and horticultural cropping systems, ecological landscapes, crop and landscape-related
entomology, resilient farm and food systems, and soil resource management at local,
national and international scales. Current and future integrated programs span basic to
applied research with stakeholder engagement; span molecular to landscape level systems;
span research, Extension, and teaching missions; and span biological, ecological, social, and
economic disciplines. The IPSI brings together individuals from a broad set of disciplines in
the continuum of basic and integrative sciences. In addition to traditional agricultural
support programs such as production and plant breeding, we have expertise in integrated
pest management, biology and ecology; systems biology; reproductive biology; and ecology.
Multidisciplinary working groups are focused around cropping ecosystems such as field
crops, fruits, vegetables, nursery crops, and wine-grapes. Systems research is increasingly
critical to solving problems for Oregonians. IPSI will also serve as an example for transdisciplinary research that engages broad academic disciplines and works jointly with
practitioners to solve real-world problems. The creation of new knowledge in IPSI is
anchored directly to people’s lives and livelihoods and connected to practice. IPSI will create
a premier and nationally ranked program that will draw on the strengths of two very strong
nationally recognized OSU programs.
All activities in IPSI will be fully integrated across the three land grant missions – teaching,
research, and extension. There will be two full-time administrative School directors who will
have responsibility for overall School leadership and management (Figure 1). These
individuals will work on all issues cooperatively but each will take the lead for certain aspects
of IPSI. An Executive Council that represents all faculty and staff in IPSI will make major
policy and directional decisions. There will be a single curriculum, peer teaching, graduate
admissions, scholarship, promotion and tenure, and other operational committees. IPSI will
consist of Program Areas that reflect areas and possible Centers of Distinction for which we
wish to be recognized nationally and internationally. These program areas will provide for
work synergies and manageable governance units within IPSI but will also encourage
interdisciplinarity across the College and Division.
4
Figure 1. New School of Integrated Plant, Soil, and Insect Science organizational chart.
IPSI will offer an undergraduate degree of Integrated Plant, Soil, and Insect Science with
options in Agronomy, General Horticulture (via Ecampus), Plant Breeding and Technology,
Ecological and Sustainable Horticulture Production, Viticulture and Enology, Ecological
Landscapes and Urban Forestry, Turf Management, Therapeutic Horticulture, Soil Science,
and Insect Biology and Management. Undergraduates will be offered a minor in Integrated
Plant, Soil, and Insect Science. IPSI will continue to offer graduate majors in Crop Science,
Horticulture, and Soil Science. Graduate minors will consist of Crop Science, Horticulture,
Soil Science, and Entomology.
Discussions are still underway about creating a larger Plant Science Program of some type.
Conversations to date have led to the conclusion that there are significant pedagogic
differences between IPSI and Botany and Plant Pathology (BPP). At this time, the majority of
IPSI undergraduates are going to non-academic career positions. Coursework and training of
these students is focused with these goals in mind. At this time, the majority of BPP
undergraduates are moving into academic settings with undergraduates curriculum aligned
with that objective.
c. Course of study: proposed curriculum, including course numbers, titles, and credit hours.
All CSS and Horticulture undergraduate degrees and options will be terminated. The
following cladogram lists the IPSI degrees that will be offered:
5
In accordance with OSU policy, students will be able to complete the degrees under which
they began at OSU. While the specifics of course offerings will change, the same types of
classes as are now being offered will be available and our School advisor will be able to make
meaningful class substitutions. We believe that many students will opt to work toward one
of the new options.
Discussions are underway to explore the possibility of broader-scale degree offerings in Plant
Sciences at both the undergraduate and graduate level. IPSI curriculum has been designed
so that it could be wrapped into such a degree.
Proposed Curriculum
Undergraduate
The proposed Integrated Plant, Soil, and Insect Science curriculum is outlined in Appendix 2.
We have designed the new major around the wide range of courses already offered by other
departments in developing the initial curricular requirements. We are exploring two options
for class designators. Either a new class designator will be used for all courses - IPSI has
been proposed - or we may use IPSI for classes that cut across the curriculum in all degree
options and use existing (ENT, HORT) or new (CROPS, SOILS) designators for some classes to
give them easy name recognition for students and others doing quick scans of classes
available at OSU. Classes with new designation will be posted in the on-line catalog system
as soon as approval for transition is granted.
Graduate
Three distinctive graduate degree majors will continue to be offered in IPSI: Crop Science,
Horticulture, and Soil Science. The existing Entomology graduate program will become a
6
stand-alone Entomology minor. Examples of coursework taken to attain each of the three
graduate degrees can be found in Appendix 3.
d. Manner in which the program will be delivered: including program location (if offered
outside of the main campus), course scheduling, and the use of technology (for both oncampus and off-campus delivery).
The proposed merger will largely incorporate the existing modes of delivery:
• Classroom lectures. This traditional approach is often enhanced through digital
projection and audiovisual devices.
• Laboratories and recitations. These modes enable and facilitate hands-on and
experiential learning.
• Blended audience courses. Undergraduate and/or graduate students and practitioners
will learn together in the same course.
• On-line courses and curricula. Currently over 25 courses are available on-line. An
online option is General Horticulture is available.
• Seminar- and team-based classes. Seminars featuring work by extension personnel,
research faculty, and graduate students from IPSI and invited guest speakers take place
weekly throughout the school year and are open to the public. Endowment funds are
available to sponsor outside speakers.
• Extension related activities. These activities include the Master Gardener program,
the Small Farms program, the Oak Creek Center for Urban Horticulture, the Agricultural
Composting Resources and Education Series, and the Organic Agriculture program.
• Outreach related activities. These activities include interactions with commercial and
industrial agriculture and the public by members of IPSI at local, regional, and national
levels. Also included are training sessions, farm fairs, community fairs, etc. Outreach is
provided via internet web pages that provide information and tools for both urban and
rural clients.
• IPSI student clubs. IPSI will host the BugZoo, Crop Science Club, Soils Graduate Student
Club, Horticulture Club, Organic Growers’ Club, Landscape Club, Turfgrass Club, and Soil
Judging Club.
• Workshops and field days. County extension and branch experiment station faculty
throughout the state hold many workshops and field days throughout the year. These
activities are open to the public. A number of workshops are conducted in Spanish.
• Internships. All students in IPSI are required to complete an internship that allows
them to work with industry, community or other governmental partners. Internships
are completed under the 410 blanket and can be from six and twelve credit hours.
• Service Learning. Experiential learning is merged with community service in a number
of classes and in club activities.
7
The proposed curriculum will continue and enhance the long-standing focus in Plant, Soil,
and Insect Science-related curricula for field-based, experiential learning where students
are exposed to materials and problems in a real-world context. This approach promotes
active learning and provides a key context for material learned from other sources. It
includes field trips as integral components of courses at all levels, as well as designated field
experience and field courses.
e. Ways in which the program will seek to assure quality, access, and diversity.
IPSI faculty have taken active steps to assure program quality including the following:
• Learning outcomes. Course work will address the following learning outcomes: 1) Identify
with career, 2) Recognize role of profession in society, 3) Embody concept of life-long
learning, 4) Develop basic academic success skills, 5) Communicate effectively, 6)
Preparation for career, 7) Develop discipline-specific knowledge and skills, 8) Develop
higher-order thinking skills, 9) Experience community service, and 10) Develop personally.
An example of learning outcomes can be found in Appendix 4.
• Providing peer assessment of all those teaching (Appendix 5). Current CSS assessments
are performed every three years for non-tenured faculty and every five years for tenured
faculty. The goals of the assessment are 1) to evaluate the teaching program of individual
instructors including course design (e.g., course content, objectives, syllabus,
organization, methods and materials for delivering instruction), grading and examinations,
relationship to overall curriculum objectives (including themes and skills appropriate to
the courses), classroom presentation, and rapport with students, and 2) to provide insight
into, and context for, results from student evaluations. These processes will be adopted
by IPSI and adjusted accordingly.
• Tracking student evaluations. Class student evaluations and the Student and Citizen
Evaluation of Teaching (SET/CET) forms are reviewed each term by the departmental
leadership. Feedback is provided to each instructor as to ways improvements might be
achieved.
• Industry alignment and relevancy. The ties that IPSI has to the agricultural industry in the
state allows for constant feedback on the training of our students. All students are
required to have an internship experience, which also results in feedback on our students’
formal training. Most of the students graduating from the two units merging into IPSI find
well-paying jobs locally or regionally in their specific field of study. The synergistic
relationship between IPSI faculty and industry, NGOs and other governmental agencies
will allow the proposed School to align training of our students with the needs of these
groups.
8
Access to the program is both wide and deep. More than $120,000 in scholarships will be
available to new and continuing students on an annual basis. These funds are derived from
endowments, long-time annual gifts, and annual contributions.
Because much of our work is hands-on activities in fields, greenhouses and laboratories,
there are many opportunities for employment within IPSI during both the school year and
summer. Over 50 students are employed during the school year and more than 125 typically
work on a full time basis for faculty during the summer.
IPSI has strong ties to community colleges offering programs in agriculture. Formal
matriculation agreements are in place. Students can attend local community colleges and
take course work toward an OSU College of Agricultural Sciences’ major. The community
colleges that offer such courses include Treasure Valley CC in Ontario; Blue Mountain CC in
Pendleton; Chemeketa CC in Salem and Dallas; Yamhill Valley, Woodburn, and Brooks;
Klamath CC in Klamath Falls; Lane CC in Eugene; Clackamas CC in Oregon City; Mt. Hood CC,
Gresham; Portland CC in Portland; and Linn-Benton CC in Corvallis and Albany.
Place bound students can take classes via the internet through the Extended Campus
program (Ecampus). More than 25 classes are available on an array of topics. An Ecampus
general B.S. in Horticulture is also now available.
The diversity of people within our program is consistent with other programs at OSU (Table
1).
Table 1. Distribution of students in IPSI, Fall 2010.
International
Students of color
Women
Oregon residents
OSU-UG
4%
18%
47%
78%
OSU-Grad
20%
12%
48%
40%
IPSI-UG
6%
9%
40%
81%
IPSI-Grad
23%
33%
54%
41%
Source: http://oregonstate.edu/admin/aa/ir/sites/default/files/enroll-fall-2010.pdf
Programs and opportunities are available to students for international study. Programs in
which IPSI students have been involved in recent years include the following:
• The E.R. Jackman Internship Support Program (provides financial assistance to
students in low-paying or volunteer internships).
Summer and Fall 2010: Nicaragua, Directed Study and Research
Guatemala, Long Way Home Organization Intern
Fall 2008: Christchurch, New Zealand, Crop Research Assistant
Summer 2008: AGRA for West Africa, Ghana
9
• The NAU 2 + 2 Program in cooperation with Nanjing Agricultural University in
China. Chinese students study their first two years in China and then finish their
last two years at OSU. OSU students will be sent to Nanjing Agricultural University
in their last two years. The first two Chinese students started at OSU in 2009.
Many of our ‘students’ include adult learners who are served by our extension and outreach
efforts. Examples of a few programs specifically targeted to diverse and ethnic audiences
include: League of Women Farmers in southern Oregon; Immigrant and Refugee Farmer
Training in the Portland Metropolitan Area; Willamette Valley and Mid-Columbia pesticide
applicator and/or tree fruit and nursery production and management training for Hispanics;
Spanish speaking sessions at the Hermiston Farm Fairs and the Far West Show in Portland,
and a cooperative Spanish-language pesticide users program with the University of Idaho in
the Treasure Valley.
IPSI will continue to pursue its’ diversity goals that include seeking to increase the diversity
of graduate and undergraduate student populations as well as faculty, and staff; developing
collaborative approaches to complex issues; broaden our interests to better serve a
changing society; and building a strong sense of community within the School. Diversity
means the inclusion of a wide spectrum of people who bring value to the School through
their variety of backgrounds, experiences, and views. This includes dimensions of race,
ethnicity, culture, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, age, physical abilities,
national origin, religious and political beliefs, scientific perspectives, and other
characteristics and ideologies. Diversity is about understanding and appreciating each
other, and moving beyond simple tolerance to embracing, respecting, and celebrating
diversity in each individual and the college as a whole.
IPSI will support OSU’s goal of creating an environment that mobilizes the community to
prepare our students, staff, faculty and the state of Oregon for leadership, service,
st
exploration, and excellence in the 21 century
(http://oregonstate.edu/diversity/DAP/2007_OSU_CAMPUS_DIVERSITY_ACTION_PLAN.pdf).
Diversity and education within IPSI
Diversity can enhance education by fostering multiple ways of understanding the curricula
and by promoting understand in a global context the commonalities and divergences in
social, political, and cultural experiences. Diversity provides tools to be culturally respectful,
professionally competent, and civically responsible by exposing students to diverse
perspectives, lifestyles and experiences. IPSI will use emerging technologies to play a key
role in facilitating learning opportunities for all students including non-traditional learners.
Students will be
• provided the opportunity for authentic, meaningful, life affirming, community
experiences;
10
• empowered to acquire new ways of viewing themselves and the world in which they
live;
• provided life transforming experiences that prepare them to think critically,
understand their lives in a global context, test and verify assumptions about the world,
and encounter realities different from their own;
• have their creativity fostered by encouraging dynamic interaction among individuals
with different perspectives, skills and values.
Diversity of staff and faculty
IPSI aspires to an environment in which all members of the community feel safe, respected,
and free at all times to participate in various undertakings of the college including learning,
teaching, administration, and research. We value the strength in diversity of our faculty,
staff, students, administrators, and ideas. We nurture the community through
communication and mutual respect.
How will we further enhance diversity?
IPSI will provide a welcoming climate for all, increase the diversity of our community, and
provide a proactive diversity curriculum and training in the following ways:
• Ensure that diverse perspectives are brought forward when Department plans and
decisions are made, by providing multiple means of communications such as
suggestion boxes, group meetings, and facilitated meetings.
• Ensure everyone recognizes harassment, knows what to do about it, and how to
prevent it by publicizing, and enforcing OSU harassment policy. This will include
subtle forms such as exclusion, which often go unnoticed by the majority. We will
assure that training in recognizing all forms of harassment is available to students in
their first year through new-student orientation and/or introductory classes, and to all
employees in their first year of employment.
• Provide appropriate physical access to buildings, classrooms, and all activities
sponsored by or on behalf of the School.
• Build community within and outside the School by holding open forums that include
interactive discussion on scientific issues or shared interests.
IPSI will pursue an increase in diversity through the following means:
• Increase racial/ethnic diversity of the student body to reflect diversity present in the
region by seeking additional funds for minority scholarships and fellowships.
• Retain and increase racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of faculty, staff, and
administration to reflect diversity present in the region by examining P&T processes to
ensure that all people, including those from underrepresented groups are fairly
treated. IPSI will further develop a proactive approach for recruitment from
underrepresented groups.
• Increase international opportunities and experiences for students, RAs, staff, and
faculty.
• Increase knowledge and understanding of diversity issues
• Actively cultivate understanding and appreciation of diversity through diversity
training. Assure that diversity training is available to students in their first year
11
through new-student orientation and/or introductory classes and to all current
employees and new employees in their first year of employment.
• Improve mentoring ability of all supervisors in the School, especially mentoring of
diverse student and employee populations by providing mentorship training. The
School will assure that mentorship training is available to all current supervisors and
new supervisors in their first year of employment.
f. Anticipated fall term headcount and FTE enrollment over each of the next five years.
This proposal integrates the curricula of two current B.S. degrees; our estimate of future
enrollment is based on recent history (Table 2). The median numbers for undergraduates
and graduates over the past six years have been 166 and 55, respectively.
Table 2. Fall enrollment trends for CSS and Horticulture over the past six years.
Undergraduate Student Headcount
CSS
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
35
41
31
34
40
40
HORT Total Majors Minors
125
99
100
93
99
103
160
140
131
127
139
143
51
64
35
36
26
16
Graduate Student Headcount
Crops Soils Hort
18
20
16
15
13
16
13
13
10
12
19
17
25
17
23
22
26
27
Ent* Total
11
1
1
0
1
4
67
51
50
49
59
63
* Entomology
Source: Departments of CSS and HORT.
The enrollment of undergraduate students in the proposed IPSI is expected to follow a linear
trend over the next five years (Table 3). Graduate enrollment is expected to increase slightly
over the present number of 57 students.
Table 3. Based on a linear trend, expected fall-term enrollment for undergraduates and
graduates for each of the next five years.
AY 2006-10
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Undergraduates
Graduates
171
57
215
57
226
58
237
59
248
61
259
62
Total
228
273
284
296
309
321
While the university established metrics for five graduates per year in MS programs and two
in PhD make sense in units where such programs have stand-alone curriculum and training
paths, in all of our graduate program areas, classes are blended. We have a predominance
of 500 level classes with a few 600 level classes offered as student numbers make sense to
12
offer such classes. This structure exists as the primary difference between MS and PhD
programs is not the coursework, but the level of self-direction that is required of students in
their research work. We also have many more PhD students coming to us with degrees in
areas related to our programs but not specific training, i.e., physics degree to do soil physics
work, biology degree to weed ecology work, etc. These students have all the skills needed to
set off on a successful path of self-directed research but need the basic class work offered by
500 level classes. Our goal in all graduate program areas is to have a total of five graduating
students at the MAg, MS and/or PhD level each year.
g. Expected degrees/certificates produced over the next five years.
Over the next five years, it is expected that the number of undergraduates and graduates
completing a degree in IPSI will grow linearly, increasing to about 48 and 19, respectively
(Table 4).
Table 4. Expected degree completion for each of the next five years by
undergraduates and graduates, respectively.
AY 2006-10
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15 2015-16
Undergraduates
Graduates
32
17
40
17
42
18
44
18
46
19
48
19
Total
49
57
60
62
65
67
h. Characteristics of students to be served: resident/nonresident/international;
traditional/nontraditional; full-time/part-time; etc.
The B.S. in IPSI degree will serve students wishing to become agricultural and science
practitioners as well as educators, policy makers, and entrepreneurs. The degree program
will primarily serve resident students with an interest in local food systems, food security
and ecosystem service work. Many students will be from California due to the increasing
limited access to their state schools. Maintaining a visible farming, cropping, soil, and insect
systems program will enable the new School to attract more out-of-state students. It is
anticipated that there will be significant numbers of nonresident students who will access
coursework online. Many of the latter will be nontraditional students, including single
parents and students returning to school after an extended absence. Due to the mix of
course types and the number of courses available online, there is potential for development
of a hybrid curriculum. In such a program, students could access introductory coursework
through a dual enrollment program, or through E-Campus. They would then access the
upper division courses and internship/research opportunities while in residence.
13
i. Adequacy and quality of faculty delivering the program.
A list of the proposed IPSI faculty, their highest degree, rank, focus area, and courses taught
can be found in Appendix 6 and 7.
Student evaluation of teaching (SET)
SET scores for the two merging units are in general at or above College levels. Scores are
available upon request.
Awards received by faculty
Faculty within in the two existing units have received numerous national and international
awards and recognition. A synthesizes of the types of awards received by faculty in 2009
and 2010 is shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Awards and recognition of faculty in merging units in 2009 and 2010.
Awarding Group
14
Awards
Alberta B. Johnston Award
American Pomological Society
American Society for Horticultural Science
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Enology and Viticulture
Arnold and Gerry Appleby
City of Portland
College of Agricultural Sciences
CSREES
Entomological Society of America: Pacific Branch
Epsilon Sigma Phi
Extension Mid-Managers Conference
eXtension Review Committee
1
3
2
5
1
1
1
9
1
2
2
2
1
Forest Service
International Society for Horticultural Science
L.L. Stewart
Multi-state research group “Water Management and Quality for Ornamental Crop
Production and Health”
National Association of County Agricultural Agent - Sustainable Agriculture USDA
SARE/NACAA
National Golf Course Superintendents Association of America
Ontario Oregon Chamber of Commerce
Oregon Farm Bureau
Oregon Invasive Species Council for GardenSmart Oregon
Oregon Organic Coalition
Oregon State University
OSU College of Agricultural Sciences
OSU Division of Outreach and Engagement
1
3
1
1
8
1
1
1
1
2
6
7
1
Awards
Awarding Group
OSU Extension Association
OSU University Continuing Education Association (UCEA)
Potato Association of America
SCRI eXtension Proposal Panel
USDAAPHIS
USDA-ARS
Western Apicultural Society
Western Region Land Grants
4
1
6
1
3
1
1
1
Total
88
j. Faculty resources.
Faculty head count number and FTE in IPSI are shown in Table 6. Vitas are available on
request. Ours will be a large unit. We have a diverse faculty with ranks of many types,
which adds strength to our unit.
Table 6. Faculty head count and FTE within IPSI for fall 2011, both on and off campus.
Category
Full Professor
Assoc. Professor
Asst. Professor
Instructor
Sub total
Number
On-campus
17
13
18
15
63
Number
Off-campus
13
20
12
10
55
Total
number
30
33
30
25
118
FTE Oncampus
15.02
12.24
14.65
11.83
53.74
Category
Number
On-campus
Number
Off-campus
Total
number
FTE
On-campus
FTE
Off-campus
Senior Faculty Research Asst.
Faculty Research Asst.
Postdoc
12
20
10
5
7
17
27
10
10.55
18.20
10.00
4.50
6.00
Research Assoc.
6
6
3.60
Professional Faculty
19
19
17.98
Classified
31
31
30.50
Sub total
98
110
90.83
10.50
Emeritus
43
43
Adjunct
5
5
Affiliated
28
28
Courtesy
23
23
Sub total
99
99
144.57
62.63
Total
260
12
67
327
Source: Department of Crop and Soil Science and Department of Horticulture.
15
FTE Offcampus
12.75
19.55
11.75
8.08
52.13
k. Other staff
Support Staff
IPSI has a Head Undergraduate Advisor who coordinates the advising in each of the options.
The advisor also tracks and updates advising materials and student files; completes
graduation audits; interacts with off-campus partners in internship programs; communicates
with community college advisors about the completion and transfer of lower division
courses, coordinates advising and orientation activities in the summer; and coordinates
undergraduate activities (general advising meetings, awards ceremonies, coordination of
awards nominations, etc.). An additional half-time advisor provides advising and related
activities for the online B.S. in general Horticulture and back up for the head advisor. A
faculty advisor is often assigned to each undergraduate student to help them chart their
curricular course, to provide contacts for jobs and internships, and to provide advice on
employment and graduate school opportunities.
One professional faculty member (office manager and executive assistant) and four other
classified staff will provide office and human resource support for IPSI. We have six farm
staff (professional and classified positions) and a computing and web staff of six (three on
partial appointments). Finance and accounting support is provided through the Agriculture
and Marine Science Business Center with some centralized human resource support.
l. Facilities, library, and other resources.
Existing classrooms and laboratories available to the Department of Horticulture and the
Department of Crop and Soil Science and other CAS units on campus generally meet the
needs for course delivery. As the School offers more blended and distance learning
opportunities, additional technological improvements will have to be made to meet these
needs. However, like many OSU facilities, deferred maintenance is sorely needed. The
oldest of facilities in use is over 50 years old and the newest is over 20 years old.
In addition to regular classroom and laboratory facilities, IPSI has faculty at Extension offices
in 32 of Oregon’s 36 counties and at nine Experiment Stations across the state - Central
Oregon Agriculture Research Center, Columbia Basin Agricultural Research Center, Food
Innovation Center Experiment Station, Hermiston Agricultural Research and Extension
Center, Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center, Malheur Experiment Station, MidColumbia Agricultural Research and Extension Center, North Willamette Research Extension
Center, and Southern Oregon Research and Extension Center. Students are often employed
at these off-campus facilities during the summer and graduates students can have
cooperative research projects with faculty on- and off- campus.
Four near-campus farms are part of IPSI - Hyslop Field Research Farm, East Farm Complex,
Lewis Brown Farm, and the Woodhall Vineyard. See section 7b for information about the
Oak Creek Center for Urban Horticulture and the proposed Center for Virtual Agriculture.
16
m. Anticipated start date.
Winter Term, 2012
2. Relationship to Mission and Goals
a. Manner in which the proposed program supports the institution’s mission and goals: for
access; student learning; research; and/or scholarly work; and service.
IPSI reflects OSU’s mission of a comprehensive, fully integrated program. IPSI has very
strong collaborations with industry and state and federal agencies and colleagues across the
region and nation. IPSI promotes economic, social, cultural, and environmental progress for
the people of Oregon, and outside the state, through its commitment to a four ‘legged’
program: teaching, research, extension, and outreach and engagement.
See other sections of this document for information on access (1e), student learning (1d),
research/ scholarship (5d) and service (vitas available on request).
b. Manner in which the proposed program contributions to the Oregon University System
goals: for access, quality learning; knowledge creation and innovation; and economic and
cultural support of Oregon and its communities.
IPSI will contribute to the OUS goals in the following ways:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
17
We will model blended learning opportunities with practitioners and students.
Statewide faculty members will collaborate with our university, community and industry
partners to provide educational opportunities about the importance and roles of food
and essential plant production and insect management to the people of Oregon.
We will model contemporary Web 2.0 technologies for authentic interactive outreach.
Faculty members in IPSI will work with OSU Agriculture in the Classroom, Science and
Math Education, Master Gardener, 4H, SNAP and other OSU, state and federal programs
in a coordinated effort to facilitate learning about food, fiber and ecosystem services.
We will work with our more than 20 affiliated commodity commissions and associations
to help coordinate and contribute to their outreach efforts and research agenda.
We will partner and collaborate with SWCD’s, NRCS, Portland Metro, NGO’s, and other
agencies to extend our reach into urban and rural communities.
We will provide “Food 101” workshops for state and federal legislators and their aides.
We will further expand our partnerships with K-12 schools across the state to provide
agricultural science and garden-based curricula and tools. We will offer this delivery
system as a readily available outreach mechanism for those writing NSF, NIH, NIFA and
other grants that require outreach.
IPSI’s research farms and CAS Branch Experiment Stations will experiment with and
showcase effective sustainable living technologies – green roofs, living walls, ecological
landscapes, insect harbors, biomass converters, solar power, etc. especially near urban
communities.
c. Manner in which the program meets broad statewide needs: and enhances the state’s
capacity to respond effectively to social, economic, and environmental challenges and
opportunities.
IPSI envisions that Oregonians and peers across the United States and internationally will
recognize the new School as a premier source of sustainable agronomic and horticultural
farm and food systems and ecological landscapes research; experiential and online learning;
and innovative and compelling outreach and engagement activities for urban, peri-urban
and rural citizenry. Activities within IPSI will result in healthy food production, improved
human health and livelihoods, ecosystem services, and protection of our environment. IPSI
has the “unfair” advantage over many of its peer institutions as our farming, forestry and
landscape sectors are in our back yard or accessible via our branch experiment stations. This
enables and provides the continued opportunity for distinction, and high quality transdisciplinary and in-field research, and experiential learning.
3. Accreditation
a. Accrediting body or professional society that has established standards in the area in
which the program lies, if applicable.
Other than the Therapeutic Horticulture Certification, which is offered through Portland
Community College (http://www.pcc.edu/programs/gerontology/horticulture-careers.html),
no other certifications are awarded at this time in other program areas. Several of our core
classes are required for certification in Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service
National Association of Interpretation certification programs
(http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/Recreation/recreation_national/interpretation.html ).
We are in on-going contact with our OSU colleagues who manage these programs to be sure
that our course offering meet their needs.
b. Ability of the program to meet professional accreditation standards.
N/A
c. Undergraduate program accreditation: if the proposed program is a graduate program in
which the institution offers an undergraduate program, proposal should identify whether
or not the undergraduate program is accredited and, if not, what would be required to
qualify it for accreditation.
N/A
d. Steps taken to achieve accreditation: if accreditation is a goal, the proposal should
identify the steps being taken to achieve accreditation. If the program is not seeking
accreditation, the proposal should indicate why it is not.
18
N/A
4. Need
a. Evidence of market demand.
Nineteen percent of the civilian labor force of Oregon is farm employment. Roughly ten
percent of state’s revenue is agriculturally based. IPSI teaching, research, extension, and
outreach takes place on campus, at four established farms, four Experiment Stations, and
five Research and Extension Centers throughout the state to meet the need of the industry.
The College has stated that there shall be no daylight between research and Extension. IPSI
meets this provision and extends the principle to complete integration of undergraduate
education. The University has three Signature Areas of Distinction: Advancing the Science of
Sustainable Earth Ecosystems; Improving Human Health and Wellness; and Promoting
Economic Growth and Social Progress. IPSI clearly addresses all three areas with its
integrated teaching, research, extension, and outreach programs.
b. Shared location: if the program’s location is shared with another similar OUS program,
proposal should provide externally validated evidence of need (e.g., surveys, focus groups,
documented requests, occupational statistics and forecasts).
N/A
c. Improved educational attainment: manner in which the program would serve the need
for improved educational attainment in the region and state.
Students across the nation and around the world will recognize IPSI as a leader in sustainable
cropping, soil and insect systems education. This will be achieved in the following ways:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
19
The courses and curricula will be delivered on-campus and across the region via
electronic technologies.
IPSI will continue to work with employers to match graduating student skills with
employer needs so that we maintain our current, near 100% placement rate.
IPSI will continue to collaborate with employers to create dynamic experiential learning
opportunities and internships that also give employers an opportunity to “test drive”
students.
IPSI will offer upper-level and graduate classes for students, practitioners and the
curious, for university credit, continuing education credit and simple knowledge
enhancement.
Service learning will be a backbone of the program.
IPSI will continue to provide scholarship monies to those in need.
Articulation between community colleges and IPSI will continue.
d. Manner in which the program would address the civic and cultural demands of
citizenship.
•
•
•
•
The Oak Creek Center for Urban Horticulture, which has programs and demonstrations
include the Green Roof, Green Tower, High Tunnels, Honey Bee Research, Living Fence,
OSU Student Organic Garden, and Permaculture.
Organic farming programs and demonstrations.
The experiment and extension stations distributed throughout the state provide for a
direct link to Oregon citizenship and allows for open and fruitful communications.
Service learning provides students with ‘hands-on’ education about the industry.
5. Outcomes and Quality Assessment
a. Expected learning outcomes of the program.
IPSI follows the University learning goals that consist of six categories identified as Academic
values; Basic academic success skills; Career preparation; Discipline-specific knowledge and
skills; Higher-order thinking skills; and Personal development. These learning goals are
generally applied to classroom course work. They can be extended equally well to extension
and outreach programs.
b. Methods by which the learning outcomes will be assessed and used to improve
curriculum and instruction.
IPSI reviews its undergraduate curriculum yearly by inventorying the course learning
outcomes for each course, identifying core competencies, and recommending changes to
the catalog of courses, including removing existing courses, redesigning or merging existing
courses, and designing new courses.
c. Program performance indicator: including prospects for success of program graduates
(employment or graduate school) and consideration of licensure, if appropriate.
Nearly all undergraduate students who seek employment after graduation have multiple job
offers and are able to obtain a job in their area of study. We have more jobs available than
we have graduates. Graduate student enrollment is limited by the number of assistantships
that we are able to generate through grants and contracts. We consistently have more high
quality applicants than available positions. Like our undergraduates, there are more jobs
available for graduate students in most program areas than available students.
d. Nature and level of research and/or scholarly work expected of program faculty:
indicators of success in those areas.
Nearly all faculty in IPSI have appointments split among teaching, research and extension.
All professorial faculty, as well as some instructors, have a minimum 15% scholarship
requirement (30% maximum) in their position descriptions and are expected to do scholarly
work as appropriate for their position. For those with research appointments, the common
20
output is journal articles, book chapters, and other similar publications. For those with
predominant extension appointments, extension publications are the most common output.
Curricula, web sites, and electronic tools are other common outputs. As part of annual
review and promotion and tenure processes, faculty are expected to document the impact
of their activities. Tens of millions of dollars of on-the-ground impact are easily
documentable every year from faculty work. In recent National Research Council
assessment of PhD programs, our units ranked at or above national averages for criteria
related to scholarship.
• Grant support: IPSI brought in 17.4% of the $55,243,472 awards received by the
College of Agricultural Sciences in 2010. For FY 2010-2011, combined grants and
contracts for the two departments, new awards make up 33% of the College of
Agricultural Sciences awards to date.
• Plant patents: Clearfield wheat varieties have been the number one royalty income
source for OSU for at least the last three years. Royalty income is and will continue to
be generated from varieties of potatoes, strawberries, hazelnut, ornamentals, and
other crops bred by IPSI faculty.
6. Program integration and collaboration
a. Closely related programs in other OUS universities and Oregon private institutions.
As indicated in other document sections, we have direct ties with community college
programs across the state as well as with Eastern Oregon University. Many students who
come from community colleges take initial coursework and then transfer into our programs
at OSU. We have direct teaching program ties with Portland Community College for the
Therapeutic Horticulture Program. Our extension faculty in Umatilla County and Wasco
Counties are co-located at community colleges and conduct some combined educational
efforts.
b. Complements other programs: ways in which the program complements other similar
programs in other Oregon institutions and other related programs at this institution.
Proposal should identify the potential for collaboration.
No other OUS universities have programs related to horticulture, crop science, soil science or
applied entomology. As noted, we are actively engaged with community colleges. We are
developing active partnerships with WSU and UI to provide coursework in plant, soil and
insects sciences on a regional basis.
c. No collaboration: if applicable, proposal should state why this program might not be
collaborating with existing similar program.
N/A
21
d. Potential impacts: on other programs in the areas of budget, enrollment, faculty
workload, and facilities use.
If programs grow significantly, there will be increased need for timely offerings of basic to
upper level math and science classes that serve as the foundation for all of our curricular
options. As noted, our facilities are 20 or more years old and updates are needed to allow
newer educational and current research and extension technologies to be used.
7. Financial Sustainability (attach the completed Budget Outline)
Both the CSS and HORT Department Heads approved the attached budget tables.
a. Business plan: for the program that anticipates and provides for its long-term financial
viability, addressing anticipated sources of funds, the ability to recruit and retain faculty,
and the plans for assuring adequate library support over the long term.
As shown in Table 7 below, the two units that will become IPSI had a combined total
operational base of nearly $13 million on a three-year average basis in the period 2007-09.
Base support (state provided funding) for the new School exceeds 7 million in FY11 and total
ARF, OSUF and grant and contract spending parallels that amount. It is anticipated that E&G
funding will remain constant or increase in the FY11-13 biennium. Extension and AES bases
may decrease as much as 20% depending on legislative outcomes. ARF contracts, OSUF
current use funds and grant and contract spending is anticipated to increase in the coming
biennium.
Fiscal management in the two units has been sound and it is anticipated that such
management will continue.
Table 7. CSS and HORT combined operational base for 2007 through 2009.
OSU
Foundation
Current Use
Grant and
Contract
Awards
Grants and
Contracts
Expenditures
1,450,369
680,217
4,867,390
3,014,583
906,576
812,456
768,965
4,700,615
2,551,014
2,191,273
2,262,825
1,449,182
9,568,005
5,565,597
U&G Base
Extension
Base
Experiment
Station Base
CSS
430,775
695,462
3,615,288
1,284,697
HORT
231,214
640,936
2,029,494
Total
661,989
1,336,398
5,644,782
Base fund total
Expenditures total
Total expenditures
ARF
Contracts
ARF
Expenditures
7,643,169
9,277,604
16,920,773
Tenured/tenure-track faculty positions in the College of Agricultural Sciences revert to the
College when a position is vacated for any reason other than tenure denial at the unit level.
A priority staffing process within the College has historically been used to fill positions. Both
College and unit resources are used in recruiting well-qualified position candidates.
Retention is a combined effort of the unit, College and University based on faculty quality
22
and equity analyses. If AES and Extension funding decline dramatically due to state budget
reductions, retention could become more of an issue especially if other states are in a better
position to hire faculty. OSU administration above the College level may need to become a
greater contributor in maintaining high-performing faculty.
b. Unique resources: plans for development and maintenance of unique resources
(buildings, laboratories, technology) necessary to offer a quality program in this field.
It is essential that all of our existing facilities in four buildings on campus and at four farms in
the area be upgraded to meet current health, access, and performance standards.
Maintenance has been deferred in all facilities for decades. Emergency repairs have been
made as well as some energy efficiency and computing connectivity upgrades, but facilities
in general show their 20-50 year age.
Center for Virtual Agriculture
Given the distribution of our faculty across the state, to fully integrate faculty into a School
governance and to best utilize faculty time and talents in teaching and outreach activities,
we will need to create and maintain state-of-the-art videoconferencing and other distance
communication technologies. We have submitted a Technology Resource Fee (TRF) proposal
to build a Center for Virtual Agriculture that could serve as a technology hub for the
northwest corner of campus. While a TRF grant will provide the needed infrastructure, if the
Center receives broader university use, we will need on-going university resources to
“person” the facility. We also see this Center as the first step in creating a true technology
learning and educational outreach facility. We would like to create a room where seamless
Skype, Adobe Connect, or other distance communications can be done to facilitate the
participation of individuals from around the world on graduate student committees and in
educational activities. We would like to create a room from which seamless Webinars can
be broadcast. We would like to create a facility where the latest multimedia technologies
can be tested and demonstrated for faculty and student use. All of these activities will
require University funding for infrastructure development and staffing. The proposed School
can guarantee that audiences for our education and outreach products will exist across the
state, region, nation, and world. The estimated cost for this facility is $300,000. The
technology cost is estimated at $200,000, the remainder is associated costs of the remodel
and purchases of appropriate furniture.
Oak Creek Center for Urban Horticulture
The Oak Creek Center for Urban Horticulture (OCCUH) is a student and public learning center
just to the east of 35th Street, north of Western Boulevard, on the OSU campus. It is a
showcase for experimentation and demonstration of sustainable living technologies in an
urban environment – green roofs, living walls, ecological landscapes, insect harbors, biomass
converters, solar power, etc. Efforts are underway to enhance this one-of-a-kind resource.
23
Funding for building repair and maintenance will be needed. Work is underway to establish
an endowment fund to provide student internships and other student experience
opportunities. Some faculty members are already engaged with community and industrial
partners to more fully develop this site as a first-choice sustainable living learning center for
our community.
c. Targeted student/faculty ratio – assuming projected student enrollment and need for
additional teaching FTE
A number of classes that have had limited enrollment are being dropped while classes with
the potential to meet the needs of a larger student audience are being added. In most cases,
course additions will be handled by teaching assignment shifts among existing faculty. That
said, as indicated elsewhere, in order to have key classes taught by long-term faculty
members, approximately two additional teaching FTE are needed in our School. A number
of classes are being taught through short-term hire of well-qualified instructors but longerterm solutions area needed to add curricular stability.
In addition, we anticipate growing the tenure-track faculty teaching FTE to at least six from
the current level of just over four FTE (distributed over 40 plus individuals). There will be
approximately 250 undergraduate students, so our targeted student FTE to faculty is 40:1 in
the year 2015 as per Table 4 (graduation rate times 4.5 years).
Our combined current student credit hours in FY 09-10 was 7825, so our targeted student
credit hours to faculty FTE should exceed 1200:1.
d. Resources to be devoted to student recruitment.
As noted elsewhere, a significant number of scholarships will be available to students
studying in IPSI. These funds will be used and School faculty will continue to pursue
university and College level scholarship and fellowship funds to recruit a diverse group of
students to IPSI. The nearly 100% job placement of our students is an attraction and will
further developed as a recruitment tool.
8. External review (if the proposed program is a graduate level program, follow the
guidelines provided in External Review of new Graduate Level Academic Programs in
addition to completing all of the above information).
Three distinctive graduate degree majors will continue to be offered in IPSI: Crop Science,
Horticulture, and Soil Science. The existing Entomology graduate program will become a
stand-alone Entomology minor.
Unlike some graduate programs on campus, there is no set curriculum for degrees in any of
the IPSI program areas. The student and their graduate committee establish student
programs. Students studying in a particular area – plant breeding and genetics, agronomy,
applied entomology, horticulture, etc. – often take a typical set of classes but there are no
24
specific requirements other than participation in graduate student orientation courses,
presenting a School seminar as part of a seminar class, and serving in a teaching assistant
capacity for one term.
a. Support from departments and program liaisons.
As the merger of CSS and HORT was proposed administratively within the College of
Agricultural Sciences and OSU, we have not asked for input on the merger from the clientele
groups with which our units interact. These groups have been told that the merger is taking
place and what the likely benefits to them will be. Given the genesis of the merger proposal,
we have not sought outside letters for inclusion in this CAT I proposal.
b. Liaisons letter of support.
Liaison letters were sent to the following people:
Ciuffetti, Lynda
Edge, W. Daniel
Males, James
Borman, Mike
Thompson, Greg
Maness, Thomas
Doescher, Paul
McGorrin, Robert
Capalbo, Susan
Herring, Peg
Department Head, Botany and Plant Pathology
Department Head, Fisheries and Wildlife
Department Head, Animal Sciences
Department Head, Rangeland Ecology and Management
Department Head, Agricultural Education and General Agriculture
Department Head, Forest Engineering, Resources, and Management
Department Head, Forest Ecosystems and Society
Department Head, Food Science and Technology
Department Head, Agricultural & Resource Economics
Leader-Education Outreach, Extension and Experiment Station Communications
The liaison letter and responses to these letters can be found in Appendix 8 and 9,
respectively.
25
Appendix 1. Organizational charts for existing a) Crop and Soil Science, and b) Horticulture
Departments.
a)
b)
26
Appendix 2. Proposed Integrated Plant, Soil, and Insect Science curriculum.
New tag
27
Credits
New title
Dual-List / Cross listed
Comments
IPSI 100
1
Freshman Seminar (first-year only)
IPSI 111
2
Introduction to Horticultural Systems, Practices and Careers
IPSI 112
2
Introduction to Soils and Agronomic Systems, Practices and Careers
Online also
IPSI 113
1
Introduction to Entomology, Practices and Careers
New course
IPSI 199
1
Issues in Sustainable Agriculture
IPSI 200
3
Crop Ecology and Morphology
IPSI 211
3
Horticulture- Food, Farms and Landscape Ecosystems
Online only
IPSI 212
4
Sustainable Soil Ecosystems
Online also
IPSI 213
4
Insect Science and Pest Management
IPSI 226
4
Landscape Plants: Deciduous Trees and Conifers
Online also
IPSI 227
3
Landscape Plants: Herbaceous Ornamentals and Natives
Online also
IPSI 228
4
Landscape Plants: Spring Flowering Trees and Shrubs
Online also
IPSI 251
2
Edible Plants: Tree Fruits, Berries, and Nuts
IPSI 260
3
Organic Gardening and Farming
IPSI 270
2
Introduction to Therapeutic Horticulture
IPSI 271
2
Techniques and Adaptation Strategies in Therapeutic Horticulture
IPSI 272
2
Basic Therapeutic Skills I
PCC only
IPSI 273
2
Basic Therapeutic Skills II
PCC only
IPSI 274
2
Therapeutic Horticultural Programs for Older Adults/Children
PCC only
IPSI 275
2
Therapeutic Garden Design, Maintenance, and Programming
PCC only
IPSI 280
3
Introduction to Sustainable Landscape Design
IPSI 285
3
Permaculture Design and Theory
Online also
IPSI 286
1
Permaculture Certification
Online also
IPSI 299
1-16
Special Topics
IPSI 299H
1-16
Special Topics
Online also
IPSI 300
4
Introduction to Agroecosystems
IPSI 301
3
The Biology of Horticulture
Online also
IPSI 305
4
Principles of Soil Science
EOU only
IPSI 310
4
Forage Production
Online also
IPSI 311
4
Plant Propagation
IPSI 314
4
Turfgrass Science
Online also
New tag
IPSI 315
28
Credits
4
New title
Dual-List / Cross listed
Comments
Nutrient Management and Cycling
IPSI 316
3
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems
IPSI 317
4
Plant Nutrition
Online also
IPSI 318 (WIC)
3
Ecology of Managed Ecosystems
IPSI 319 (WIC)
3
Agricultural and Environmental Predicaments
IPSI 320
3
Principles of Crop Production
New course
IPSI 327
3
World Weeds
Online also
IPSI 328
3
World Food
Online only
IPSI 329
3
World Soils
IPSI 330
3
Pests, Plagues and Politics
IPSI 332
3
Identification of Economically Important Insects
IPSI 335
3
Introduction to Water Science and Policy
IPSI 340
3
Pens and Plows: Writings of Working the Land
IPSI 345
4
Sustainable Landscape Maintenance: Principles and Practices
IPSI 350
3
Urban Forestry
IPSI 351
4
Floriculture and Greenhouse Systems
IPSI 358
4
Sustainable Landscape Construction: Techniques
IPSI 360
4
Irrigation and Drainage for Horticultural Systems
IPSI 361
4
Plant Nursery Systems
IPSI 366
3
Soil Ecosystems of Wildlands
IPSI 368
3
Practicum in Analytical Soil Chemistry
IPSI 380
3
Advanced Landscape Design Studio
IPSI 381
3
Ag, Power, Discrimination, & Survival
IPSI 385
3
Landscape Operation
IPSI 399
1-16
Special Topics
IPSI 401
1-16
Research
IPSI 403
1-16
Thesis
IPSI 405
1-16
Reading & Conference
IPSI 405t
3
Turfgrass Pest Management
IPSI 406
1
Projects: Data Presentations
IPSI 406
2
Horticultural Projects
IPSI 407
1
Senior Seminar
Online also
New course
GEO/IPSI 335
Online only
Online only
New course
New tag
IPSI 408
29
Credits
1-16
New title
Dual-List / Cross listed
Comments
Workshop
IPSI 409
1-16
Practicum
IPSI 410
1-16
Internship
IPSI 411
1
Book Club
IPSI 412
1
Career Exploration
IPSI 415
3
Soil Fertility Management
IPSI 418
1
Toxic Plants in PNW Pastures
IPSI 430
3
Plant Genetics
IPSI 431
1
Plant Genetics Recitation
IPSI 433
4
Systematics and Adaptation of Vegetable Crops
IPSI 435
4
Environmental Soil Physics
IPSI 438
2
Exploring World Agriculture
IPSI 440
4
Weed Management
Online only
IPSI 430/530
New course
IPSI 433/533
IPSI 440/540
IPSI 441
4
Plant Tissue Culture
IPSI 441/541
IPSI 442
4
Principles of Integrated Pest Management: Systems Design
IPSI 442/542
IPSI 443
3
Honey Bee Biology and Bee Keeping
IPSI 445
3
Fruit Quality
IPSI 447
4
Arboriculture and Tree Care in Managed Landscapes
IPSI 450
4
Plant Breeding
IPSI 451
4
Sustainable Tree Fruit and Nut Production
IPSI 452
4
Berry and Grape Physiology and Production Systems
IPSI 453
3
Grape Growth Physiology
IPSI 454
3
Principles and Practices of Vineyard Production
Online also
IPSI 450/550
IPSI 452/552
Online also
IPSI 455
4
Biology of Soil Ecosystems
IPSI 456
4
Urban Forest Planning, Policy, and Management
IPSI 455/555
IPSI 460
3
Seed Production
IPSI 460/560
IPSI 463
3
Seed Biology
IPSI 463/563
IPSI 466
4
Soil Morphology and Classification
IPSI 466/566
IPSI 468
3
Digital Mapping of Soilscapes
IPSI 475
3
Soil Resource Potentials
IPSI 478
4
Advanced Turfgrass Science
IPSI 480
4
Case Studies in Cropping Systems
IPSI 480/580
Online also
New tag
IPSI 495
30
Credits
3
New title
Dual-List / Cross listed
Comments
Horticultural Management Plans
IPSI 499
1-16
Special Topics
IPSI 501
1-16
Research
IPSI 503
1-16
Thesis
IPSI 505
1-16
Reading & Conference
IPSI 506
1-16
Projects
IPSI 507
1-16
Seminar
IPSI 508
1-16
Workshop
IPSI 509
1-16
Practicum in Teaching
IPSI 511
2
Research and Educational Perspectives in Horticulture
IPSI 512
1
Discussions in Plant Science
IPSI 513
3
Plant Genetic Engineering
IPSI 514
3
Properties, Processes and Functions of Soils
IPSI 515
3
Soil Fertility Management
IPSI 516
4
Advance Plant Nutrition
IPSI 517
1
Diagnosis of Nutritional Disorders
IPSI 523
3
Principles of Stable Isotopes
IPSI 525
3
Mineral-Organic Matter Interactions
IPSI 530
3
Plant Genetics
IPSI 531
1
Plant Genetics Recitation
IPSI 430/530
IPSI 533
4
Systematics and Adaptation of Vegetable Crops
IPSI 540
4
Weed Management
IPSI 440/540
IPSI 541
4
Plant Tissue Culture
IPSI 441/541
IPSI 542
4
Principles of IPM: Systems Design
IPSI 442/542
IPSI 543
3
Honey Bee Biology and Bee Keeping
IPSI 443/543
IPSI 545
4
Soil Chemistry
IPSI 547
3
Nutrient Cycling in Soil Ecosystems
IPSI/BPP/FS 547
IPSI 550
4
Plant Breeding
IPSI 450/550
IPSI 552
4
Berry & Grape Physiology/Culture
IPSI 452/552
IPSI 555
4
Biology of Soil Ecosystems
IPSI 455/555
IPSI 560
3
Seed Production
IPSI 460/560
IPSI 563
3
Seed Biology
IPSI 463/563
New name
New tag
IPSI 566
31
Credits
4
New title
Soil Morphology and Classification
IPSI 568
3
Soil Genesis and Geomorphology
IPSI 573
4
Cytogenetics
IPSI 580
4
Case Studies in Cropping Systems
IPSI 590
4
Experimental Design in Agriculture
IPSI 599
1-16
Special Topics
IPSI 601
1-16
Research
IPSI 603
1-16
Thesis
IPSI 605
1-16
Reading & Conference
IPSI 606
1-16
Projects
IPSI 607
1
Seminar
IPSI 608
1-16
IPSI 620
1
DNA Fingerprinting
IPSI 621
1
Genetic Mapping
IPSI 622
1
Mapping Quantitative Trait Loci
IPSI 635
4
Advanced Soil Physics
IPSI 645
3
Soil Microbial Ecology
IPSI 650
3
Advanced Plant Breeding & Quantitative Genetics
Dual-List / Cross listed
Comments
IPSI 466/566
IPSI 480/580
Online also
Workshop
IPSI 655
3
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
IPSI 660
4
Herbicide Science
IPSI 670
3
Physiology of Crop Yield
IPSI 699
1-16
Special Topics
New course
GEO/IPSI 655
Appendix 3. Graduate coursework examples.
Masters of Science - Crop Science
Major Coursework Title
Course
Number
Credits
Thesis
CSS503
12
Seminar
CSS507
1
Practicum in Teaching
CSS509
3
Methods of Data Analysis
CSS511
4
Methods of Data Analysis
CSS512
4
Properties, Processes and Function of Soil
CSS513
4
Advanced Plant Nutrition
CSS516
4
Weed Management
CSS540
4
Ecological Restoration
CSS545
4
Biology of Invasive Plants
CSS548
3
Biology of Soil Ecosystems
CSS555
4
Environmental Physiology Plants
CSS588
3
Experimental Design in Ag
CSS590
4
Rangeland Management Planning
CSS590
4
Professional Development
CSS599
1
Ecological Invasive Plant Management
CSS670
2
Total
61
Masters of Science - Soils
Course
Number
Credits
Properties, Processes, and Functions of Soils
CSS513
4
Professional Development-writing
CSS599
1
Nutrient Cycling
FS547
3
Methods of Data Analysis
ST511
4
Practicum in Teaching
CSS509
3
Biology of Soil Ecosystems
CSS555
4
Methods of Data Analysis
ST512
4
Soil Morphology and Classification
CSS566
4
Soil Landscape Analysis
CSS568
4
Soil Physics
CSS535
3
Thesis
CSS503
11
Major Coursework Title
Total
32
45
Masters of Science - Horticulture (Plant Breeding and Genetics)
Major Course Title
Course
Number
Credits
Minor Course Title
Course
Number
Credits
Research & Educational Perspectives in Horticulture
HORT511
2
Anthropology of Food
ANTH586
4
Discussions in Plant Science
HORT512
2
Ethnographic Methods
ANTH591
4
Plant Genetics
HORT530
3
Advanced Plant Nutrition
HORT516
4
Plant Breeding
HORT550
4
Professional Development
CSS699
1
Advanced Plant Breeding
CSS650
3
Total
Methods of Data Analysis
ST511
4
Experimental Design in Agriculture
CSS590
4
General Biochemistry
BB550
4
General Biochemistry
BB551
3
Systematics and Adaptation of Vegetable Crops
HORT533
4
Genes and Chemicals in Agriculture: Value and Risks
BI535
3
Seminar
HORT507
1
Thesis
HORT503
12
Current Topics in Plant Breeding
HORT630
3
Research
HORT501
1
Total
33
53
13
Appendix 4. Learning outcomes.
Oregon State University
Department of Horticulture
Undergraduate Student Learning Outcomes
The Department of Horticulture’s Curriculum Committee has identified the following as core
learning objectives for undergraduate students completing any of the department’s six options.
1.
learn, comprehend and apply the language of Horticulture and Horticulture Science
2.
understand and be able to manipulate plant growth and development through
Horticulture practices
3.
observe Horticulture systems, identify assets and liabilities of the systems, form
hypotheses and make appropriate recommendations
4.
communicate effectively verbally, orally and in writing
5.
recognize, understand and be able to use the latest tools and technology relevant to
Horticulture
6.
identify plants, make appropriate plant recommendations and suggest novel plant uses
in specific Horticulture systems
7.
identify and explain the role of Horticulture in contemporary social, economic, political
and environmental contexts
8.
demonstrate proficiency in the basic sciences through applications in Horticulture
9.
participate and contribute to society as a Horticulture professional
10. find, analyze and use relevant Horticulture information and resources
11. synthesize knowledge and experience from class, work experience and internships to
solve Horticulture problems across many scales
12. analyze Horticulture entities as managed ecosystems
We recognize and expect that individual options will likely emphasize additional learning objectives
that are relevant to the option’s specific goals.
These objectives constitute a “living” document that should be visited often and revised if
necessary. They serve as a guide in the development of individual courses, programs, options and a
cohesive curriculum and are a valuable reference as the department faces critical
retirement/replacement of core teaching faculty. In addition, they are the foundation of the
department’s current learning assessment initiative (in compliance with OSU’s Office of Academic
Programs).
34
Appendix 5. IPSI peer assessment.
DEPARTMENT OF CROP AND SOIL SCIENCE
FACULTY PEER TEACHING REVIEW PROGRAM
DRAFT RECOMMENDATION 11-12-01
The faculty of the Department view excellence in teaching as an integral component in our Department’s success.
Accordingly, we believe that all of our faculty can benefit from periodic review and assessment of their teaching effort. The
primary focus of the peer-review of teaching is to ensure that our courses compel higher-level learning for our students.
Goals and Intent
• Peer teaching evaluation is intended to be a positive, constructive experience for the instructor
and should be conducted fairly and with a spirit of collegiality.
Peer teaching evaluation has a role in both formative and summative teaching evaluation (Keig
and Waggoner 1994).
 Formative evaluation: evaluation intended to improve teaching.
 Summative evaluation: evaluation that functions in decision making relative to P&T and
compensation (required in OSU guidelines for P&T).
• Goals of peer teaching evaluation:
1. To evaluate the teaching program of individual instructors including course design (e.g.,
course content, objectives, syllabus, organization, methods and materials for delivering
instruction), grading and examinations, relationship to overall curriculum objectives
(including themes and skills appropriate to the courses), classroom presentation, and
rapport with students.
2. To provide insight into and context for results from other forms of evaluation (e.g.,
student evaluations).
3. To foster interaction among faculty:
4. To recognize the efforts and dedication of departmental teaching faculty work
collaboratively to assess teaching and assist in improvement of teaching. faculty.
Serving as peer evaluators may require a significant time commitment. Those who serve on
peer evaluation committees should provide time for doing so and be rewarded for their efforts by
the department head.
•
Frequency of Evaluation
• All faculty teaching regularly scheduled courses should experience peer-teaching evaluation.
This includes courtesy faculty.
• The entire teaching program (all courses that are taught by an instructor) should be evaluated.
• The teaching program of non-tenured faculty should undergo peer evaluation every three years.
Most non-tenured faculty would experience evaluation twice prior to P&T. A principal purpose
of the first evaluation is to identify, well in advance of evaluation for P&T, areas of teaching that
need improvement.
• The teaching program of tenured faculty should undergo evaluation at least every 5 years.
• The Department Head will maintain and distribute an annual schedule to ensure that faculty can
adequately prepare for review.
Peer Evaluation Committee
• A Peer Evaluation Committee will be appointed by the Department Head. This standing
committee will consist of three to five faculty members, each of whom will serve staggered,
three-year terms.
35
•
Ad hoc peer review committees will be formed for each faculty member being evaluated. Each
ad hoc committee will consist of two members of the Peer Evaluation Committee and one or
two additional members as needed to ensure subject matter expertise. The additional members
may come from other departments.
Procedure for Conducting Peer Teaching Evaluations
• The peer evaluation consists of two parts: examination of instructional materials and classroom
visitations.
• Examination of instructional materials:
1. The instructor provides to the committee a summary of the teaching program that
includes: (i) an instructor's narrative consisting of the instructor's personal teaching
philosophy, course descriptions, course objectives, relationship with other courses in the
department (prerequisites, subsequent courses, etc.), description of methods and
approach for delivering instructional materials, expected outcomes, recent changes in
content and methods and recent efforts in teaching development, and comments and
concerns relevant to evaluation, (ii) syllabi, (iii) reading list/text(s), (iv) examples of
course handouts and/or website information, (v) a sample of exams and problem sets,
and (vi) grade distributions. The Department provides a compilation of student
evaluations for all courses taught in the last 5 years. Peer evaluation can provide insight
into and context for results of student evaluations and suggest whether students and the
instructor are "connecting." (Adapted from Seldin, 1985; University of Missouri, 1992).
2. Members of the committee review the teaching summary and meet as a group to discuss
the instructor's teaching program. A list of possible questions for consideration by the
committee is attached (Attachment I). The committee should identify the strengths of
the program, areas for improvement, and formulate questions on aspects of the
program that are unclear.
3. The committee meets with the instructor to discuss, clarify, and expand the materials
summarizing the teaching program. Every effort should be made to keep the tone of the
meeting positive and constructive. An oral summary of the committee's reaction to the
teaching program should be presented to the instructor. Strengths of the program
should be discussed and areas for improvement should be suggested. Suggestions for
improvement are recommendations for the instructor's consideration. Questions that
arose at the previous meeting of the review committee should be discussed with the
instructor.
• Classroom visitations:
o Done properly, visitation by peers demands a good deal of time and can be very useful to
help improve teaching. In-class components must be part of peer evaluation within the
OSU guidelines for Tenure and Promotion. Therefore, peer evaluation of untenured
professors and those seeking promotion is essential. Classroom visitation can be helpful
in resolving discrepancies between student evaluations and the perception of the peer
evaluation.
o
1. The committee will meet with the instructor prior to coordinate classroom visits.
One or more of the instructor’s classes will be visited. Each class that is visited
will be visited at least twice. All committee members will do at least one
36
classroom evaluation. Guidelines for evaluation of classroom visitation are
attached (Attachment II).
2. After the visitations, the committee and instructor meet to discuss
strengths/weaknesses, etc. Videotapes of selected lectures may be made for use
by the instructor and/or committee.
The Review Document
• The ad hoc committee will develop a written evaluation for consideration by the Peer Evaluation
Committee. Based on this draft the Peer Evaluation Committee will prepare a consensus review
letter to be submitted to the Department Head.
• A copy of the evaluation(s) will be provided to the instructor who may respond to it in writing.
Both the peer evaluation and the instructor's responses must be considered in summative
evaluation.
References
Keig, L., and M.D. Waggoner. 1994. Collaborative Peer Review: The Role of Faculty in Improving College Teaching. ASHEERIC Higher Education Reports. The George Washington University, Washington, DC.
The University of Missouri. 1992. Teaching Evaluation
Seldin, P. 1985. Changing Practices in Faculty Evaluation. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
Attachment I
Guidelines For Reviewing The Teaching Summary (Adapted from Seldin, 1985 & University Missouri, 1992)
Course Content
Is it up-to-date?
Is the treatment balanced and fair?
If appropriate, are conflicting views presented?
Are the breadth and depth of coverage appropriate?
Has the instructor mastered the subject matter?
Is the coverage responsive to the needs of students?
Is it relevant to the discipline?
Course Objectives
Are the objectives clearly communicated to the students?
Are they consistent with overall curricular objectives?
Does the course incorporate the appropriate themes and skills?
Are in-class and out-of-class work appropriately balanced?
Does the instructor encourage students to think for themselves?
Course Organization
Is the syllabus current and relevant to the course objectives?
Is the course outline logical?
Are the lecture, laboratory, or other assignments integrated?
Should they be?
Is the time devoted to each topic appropriate?
Assignments
Do assignments supplement lectures discussions, labs, and fieldwork?
Do assignments reflect and support course objectives?
Are they appropriate for the level of student?
Is adequate time given to complete the assignments?
Is it consistent with expected quality?
37
Are the assignments challenging to the students?
Grading and Examinations
Are exams suitable to content and course objectives?
Are exams representative of course content?
Are exams clearly written?
Are exams fairly graded?
Are grading standards made clear to the students?
Interest in Teaching
Does the instructor discuss teaching with colleagues?
Does the instructor seek advice from others and participate in teaching-related workshops and committees?
Is the instructor sought out by others on teaching-related matters?
Is the instructor knowledgeable about current developments in teaching?
Instructor Concerns
Are the instructors concerns about evaluation well founded?
Are the instructor's needs for course improvement well founded?
Attachment II
Faculty/Instructor Name ______________________________________
Class course and number ______________________________________
Class Topic ______________________________________
Date __________________
38
Crop and Soil Science Dept., Oregon State University
Teaching Evaluation Feedback Form
Please answer the following questions regarding instructor performance. No ability = O; Outstanding ability = 4. NA if the
statement does not apply.
Relating the subject
1.
The teacher provided a learning objective for today’s
class.
2.
The teacher taught the material which he/she
promised to teach.
3.
The teacher used language appropriate for the
student’s level.
4.
The teacher presented information that is current and
relevant
Comments:
Delivering the
information
5.
The teacher presented information in a logical
manner.
6.
Teaching aids - videos, overheads, the internet - were
useful and relevant.
7.
The teacher encouraged students to think of solutions
to problems.
8.
The teacher used appropriate pacing for different
portions of the presentations
Comments:
Relating to the students
9.
The teacher listened to class members.
10.
The teacher answered questions from class members
11.
The teacher checked for student understanding
throughout the class.
12.
The teacher provides opportunities for more
extensive discussion of course material (either in
and/or out of class).
Comments:
Overall teaching ability
13.
Overall rating of teacher’s performance?
Comments:
39
N/A
0
Ability
1 2
3
N/A
0
1
2
3
4
N/A
0
1
2
3
4
N/A
0
1
2
3
4
N/A
0
1
2
3
4
N/A
0
1
2
3
4
N/A
0
1
2
3
4
N/A
0
1
2
3
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
N/A
0
1
2
3
4
N/A
0
1
2
3
4
4
Appendix 6. List of on-campus faculty; name, highest degree, rank, focus area, and courses taught.
Name
Azarenko, Anita
40
Highest Degree
Rank
PhD
Professor
Focus Area
Administration and tree fruit physiology
Courses
HORT 511
Bottomley, Peter
PhD
Professor
Soil microbiology
CSS413/513, MB 302
Chen, Tony
PhD
Professor
Plant biotechnology and stress physiology
HORT 513
Fisher, Glenn
PhD
Professor
Field crops entomology
Hannaway, David
PhD
Professor
Forages
Hart, John
PhD
Professor
Soils fertility management
Hayes, Patrick
PhD
Professor
Plant breeding and genetics - barley
CSS430/530
Karow, Russell
PhD
Professor
Administration
CSS100
Kling, Jennifer
PhD
Professor
Plant breeding and genetics - meadowfoam
CSS590, 650
CSS310
Mallory-Smith, Carol
PhD
Professor
Weed science
CSS440, 660
Mehlenbacher, Shawn
PhD
Professor
Hazelnut breeding and genetics
HORT 433/533;
Myers, Jim
PhD
Professor
Vegetable breeding and genetics
HORT 450/550
Myrold, David
PhD
Professor
Soil microbiology
CSS455, 523,645
CSS310, 599
Rao, Sujaya
PhD
Professor
Entomology
Stephenson, Garry
PhD
Professor
Small farms extension
Strik, Bernadine
PhD
Professor
Berry cropping systems
Young, William
PhD
Professor
Seed crops production
Baham, John
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Soil chemistry
Braunworth, Bill
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Admin
Chastain, Tom
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Crop/seed plant physiology
CSS200, 460, 670
Dragila, Maria
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Soil physics
CSS335,535
HORT 251, 452/552
CSS205E, 305E, 395E
Elias, Sabry
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Seed science
CSS420/520
Noller, Jay
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
soil pedology and morphology
CSS466,468
Nonogaki, Hiroyuki
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Seed biology
HORT 463/563
Parke, Jennifer
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Plant pathology and soil interactions
CSS325
Regan, Rich
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Nursery and greenhouse cropping systems
HORT 311, 351,361
Ross, Andrew
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Cereal crops quality and food science
FST 425/525,480,641
Schrumpf, Barry
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Seed certification
Stone, Alex
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Vegetable cropping systems
Sullivan, Dan
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Soils fertility and soil amendments
CSS515
41
Albert, Dennis
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Landscape ecology
Contreras, Ryan
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Ornamental plant breeding
Deluc, Laurent
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Wine grape metabolomics
Flowers, Mike
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Cereal crops management
HORT 226 & 228, 301
CSS321
Golembiewski, Rob
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Turf grass management
HORT 112, 314, 360, 418
Hulting, Andrew
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Extension weed science
CSS418, 407
Kleber, Markus
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Soil biogeochemistry
CSS375,525
Lambrinos, John
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Landscape ecology
HORT 318, 411
Langellotto-Rhodaback, Gail
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Community and urban horticulture
Motazedian, Iraj
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Seed certification
Naithani, Sushma
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Plant genetics and genomics
Peachey, Ed
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Weed ecology and management in horticultural crops
Pett-Ridge, Julie
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Environmental soil science
Sagili, Ramesh
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Apiculture
Skinkis, Patty
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Viticulture
Townsend, M. Shaun
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Plant breeding and genetics - hops
Walton, Vaughn
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Integrated Pest Management
White, Linda
MS
Assist. Prof.
Berry cropping systems
Burr, Terry
MS
Instructor
Seed certification
Cassidy, James
MS
Instructor
primary introductory soil class teacher
CSS205,305,499
HORT 112, 412
Donegan, Kelly
MS
Instructor
Advisor
Hankins, Rachel
MS
Instructor
Seed certification
Hannaway, Kimberly
MS
Instructor
Lead CSS ecampus class instructor/coordinator
Knight, Randy
MS
Instructor
Seed certification
CSS305
HORT 453, 454
HORT 442/542, 330
CSS 499/599E SERIES
McDonald, Sarah
PhD
Instructor
Nutrition and general horticulture-online
McMorran, Jeffrey
PhD
Instructor
Seed certification
Millison, Andrew
MS
Instructor
Permaculture
HORT 285, 286
Ries, Paul
MS
Instructor
Urban forestry
HORT 350, 447, 455
HORT 260
Seiter, Stefan
PhD
Instructor
Ecological and sustainable agriculture
Shafabakhsh, Farhad
MS
Instructor
Seed certification
Shay, Al
MAg
Instructor
Environmental landscape management
Smith, Sandy
MBA
Instructor
Seed certification
Zielinski, John
BS
Instructor
Seed certification
HORT 111, 316
HORT 315, 358
Appendix 7. List of off-campus faculty; name, highest degree, rank, focus area, and courses taught.
Name
42
Highest Degree
Rank
Focus area
Ball, Daniel
Butler, Marvin
PhD
MS
Professor
Professor
Weed science
COARC Super., Ext. Staff Chair, field crops ext
Landgren, Chal
MS
Professor
Christmas tree extension specialist
Long, Lynn
MS
Professor
Tree fruit cropping systems
Macnab, Sandy
MS
Professor
Sherman Co field crops extension
McGrath, Dan
PhD
Professor
Vegetable IPM and cropping systems
Olsen, Jeff
MS
Professor
Tree fruit cropping systems
Petrie, Steven
PhD
Professor
CBARC superintendent and soil fertility
Shearer, Peter
PhD
Professor
Tree fruit entomology
Shock, Clinton
PhD
Professor
MES superintendent and crop physiology
Sugar, David
PhD
Professor
Tree fruit pathology
Tuck, Brian
MS
Professor
MCREC superintendent and field crops
VanBuskirk, Phil
MS
Professor
Admin, tree fruit entomology
Bohle, Mylen
MS
Assoc. Prof.
Central Oregon field crops extension
Bubl, Chip
MS
Assoc. Prof.
Commercial and community horticulture, admin
Castagnoli, Steve
MS
Assoc. Prof.
Tree fruit cropping systems
Clough, George
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Vegetable cropping systems
Corp, Mary
MS
Assoc. Prof.
Umatilla Co field crops extension
Detweiler, Amy Jo
MS
Assoc. Prof.
Community horticulture
Horneck, Donald
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Columbia Basin irrigated crops extension and soils
Huber, Andrew
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Plant science teaching
Kaufman, Diane
MS
Assoc. Prof.
Berry cropping systems
Kiemnec, Gary
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Soil science teaching
Lutcher, Larry
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Morrow Co field crops extension
Machado, Stephen
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Crop management and soil quality
McMahan, Linda
MS
Assoc. Prof.
Community horticulture, admin
Penhallegon, Ross
MS
Assoc. Prof.
Community horticulture
Renquist, Steve
MS
Assoc. Prof.
Commercial and community horticulture
Roseberg, Richard
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Crop management and soil fertility
Rosetta, Robin
MS
Assoc. Prof.
Nursery and greenhouse IPM
Couse taught
CSS all UG plant
CSS all UG soils
Name
Highest Degree
Focus area
Walenta, Darrin
MS
Assoc. Prof.
Union/Wallowa/Baker Co field crops extension
Wysocki, Don
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Soil management and alternate crops
Yang, Wei
PhD
Assoc. Prof.
Berry cropping systems
Anderson, Nicole
MS
Assist. Prof.
North Willamette Valley field crops extension
Angima, Sam
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Lincoln Co Staff Chair, small farms, master gardeners
Charlton, Brian
MS
Assist. Prof.
Potatoes and specialty crops
Defrancesco, Joe
MS
Assist. Prof.
Integrated Pest Management
Einhorn, Todd
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Tree fruit cropping systems
Felix, Joel
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Weed science
Kaiser, Clive
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Tree fruit cropping systems
Miller, Weston
MS
Assist. Prof.
Community and urban horticulture
Norberg, Steven
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Malheur Co field crops extension
Owen, Jim
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Nursery and greenhouse production and management
Rondon, Silvia
PhD
Assist. Prof.
Field crops entomology
Silberstein, Tom
MS
Assist. Prof.
Mid-Willamette Valley - field crops extension
Affeldt, Richard
43
Rank
Instructor
has resigned - being replaced
Andrews, Nick
MS
Instructor
Small farms and vegetable cropping systems
Bell, Neil
MS
Instructor
Community and urban horticulture
Buchanan, Marcus
PhD
Instructor
Fery, Melissa
MS
Instructor
Fick, Barbara
MS
Instructor
Viticulture
Central Willamette Valley small farms - forages and
water quality
Community and urban horticulture
Garrett, Amy
MS
Instructor
Maley, Jordan
BS
Instructor
Gilliam Co field crops extension
Matthewson, Melissa
MS
Instructor
Small farms
Powell, Maud
MS
Instructor
Small farms
Reynolds, Robert
MS
Instructor
Community and urban horticulture
Couse taught
HORT 260
Appendix 8. Liaisons letter of support.
Dear Colleagues:
The attached Category I proposal (current draft) describes the creation of the School of Integrated
Plant, Soil, and Insect Science. It is the merger of two departments in the College of Agricultural
Sciences- the Departments of Crop and Soil Science, and Horticulture. Additionally, we have
proposed a new undergraduate major- Integrated Plant, Soil and Insect Science (IPSI) with a number
of options. Our new course compliment is provided in the attached Excel file.
In accordance with the liaison criteria in the Curricular Procedures Handbook, this memo serves as
notification to your department of our intent to create a new School within the College of
Agricultural Sciences and a new undergraduate major.
Please review the attached materials and send your comments, concerns, or statement of support
to Anita by 16 May, if at all possible. We apologize for the short turn around but are scrambling to
try to have our completed CAT I before the Faculty Senate by their June meeting. We sincerely
appreciate your assistance. Per custom these days, we will interpret lack of response as support.
We thank you for your time and input.
Sincerely,
Anita and Russ
44
Appendix 9. Responses to liaisons letter of support.
From: Thompson, Greg [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:20 AM
To: Anita Azarenko ([email protected])
Subject: FW: CAT I liaison
The Agricultural Education and General Agriculture Department supports the merger of the CSS and
HORT Departments into the School of Integrated Plant, Soil, and Insect Science. I commend you all
on your efforts to make the merger a success. The proposal is well written and very detailed. It is
evident that the writers and collaborators have put a lot of effort and detail into this merger and
School.
Best Wishes,
Greg
Greg Thompson, PhD
Professor & Department Head
Agricultural Education and General Agriculture
112 Strand Hall
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
(541) 737-1337
[email protected]
From: Borman, Mike
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:01 AM
To: Karow, Russell; Azarenko, Anita Nina
Subject: RE: CAT I liaison
Russ and Anita,
For what it is worth from a “lame Ranger”, you have my support. Good luck!
Mike Borman
Department Head and Extension Specialist
Dept. of Rangeland Ecology & Management
Tel: 541-737-1614
Fax: 541-737-0504
[email protected]
45
46
As the merger of CSS and HORT was proposed administratively within the College of
Agricultural Sciences and OSU, we have not asked for input on the merger from the clientele
groups with which our units interact. These groups have been told that the merger is taking
place and what the likely benefits of the merger will be to them. Given the genesis of the
merger proposal, we have not sought outside letters for inclusion in this CAT I proposal.
Create a School of Integrated Plant, Soil, and Insect Science by Merging
the Departments of Crops and Soil Science and Horticulture
Integrated Plant, Soil, and Insect Science
Winter 2012
College of Agricultural Sciences
White, Susan
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Nutefall, Jennifer
Friday, October 21, 2011 4:06 PM
Azarenko, Anita Nina; White, Susan
Karow, Russell
RE: Cat I reviews
Hi Anita – I did a little more investigation and concluded that since this is considered a merger or reorganization, we do
not need to do a library evaluation for this proposal.
We have sent your paperwork to Bonnie Avery (our natural resources librarian) just as an FYI so she’s aware of the
change (although she probably was already).
Have a good weekend
Jennifer
From: Azarenko, Anita Nina
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 5:38 PM
To: Nutefall, Jennifer; White, Susan
Cc: Karow, Russell
Subject: RE: Cat I reviews
Hi Jennifer,
Good to meet you at the LAB meeting last week!
I am curious if it is necessary to do a full library review. The Horticulture and Crop and Soil Science Departments are
merging and there should be no difference in needs or expectations from the library.
Do you have a few minutes to talk about the assessment?
Anita Nina Azarenko
Professor and Head
Department of Horticulture
ALS 4017
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
phone (541)737-9877
FAX (541)737-3479
Horticulture from "Soil to soul". Grow healthy food and essential plants, design and create sustainable landscapes, discover how plants improve people's
lives and livelihoods. (http://hort.oregonstate.edu)
Anita
From: Nutefall, Jennifer
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 9:02 AM
To: White, Susan
1
Cc: Azarenko, Anita Nina; Karow, Russell
Subject: RE: Cat I reviews
Hi Susan,
Thanks for getting in touch about the Cat 1 process. If you could please send me the Cat 1 proposal you submitted for
review that would be great. When I receive that, I will forward it to our subject librarians for review. Our usual
turnaround time for this process is about 2 weeks.
Thank you
Jennifer
Jennifer Nutefall
Associate University Librarian for Innovative User Services
Oregon State University
121 The Valley Library
Corvallis, OR 97331
Phone: 541-737-8527
Fax: 541-737-3453
From: White, Susan
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 8:30 AM
To: Nutefall, Jennifer
Cc: Azarenko, Anita Nina; Karow, Russell
Subject: FW: Cat I reviews
Jennifer,
I am writing to you regarding a category I proposal to merge the departments of Horticulture and Crops and Soils
Science. The Budget and Fiscal Planning Committee requested a library evaluation (please see the emails below) and
Gary Beach pointed me towards you. I guess I need a statement from you that says the merger of the two units will be
covered by the library.
What do you need from me to get this done?
Thanks,
Susan White, Ph.D.
Program Development Facilitator
4017A ALS
Oregon State University
Corvallis OR 97333
Cell: 302-841-1763
From: Walter Loveland [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:39 PM
To: White, Susan
2
Cc: Karow, Russell; [email protected]; Beach, Gary
Subject: Re: Cat I reviews
Susan,
Please substitute these new budget pages and revisions to the proposal in the CPS. The BFP group wanted a
library assessment. Normally that would not be done for a merger but the group wanted to be sure that any new
aspects of the new program were covered by the Library. I think a statement from the library will suffice here.
Walt Loveland
On 18 Oct 2011, at 13:07, White, Susan wrote:
Afternoon,
I asked Gary Beach what I was supposed to do concerning the Library Evaluation. Please find his response below, then
let me know what further steps I should take. One possible point of confusion may be that we were required only to
submit an abbreviated Cat I but we filled out the full Cat I form before we realized this fact.
I also made changes to the budget pages and narrative to more fully describe who the budgetary units were and that
they approved of the plan.
Thanks,
Susan White, Ph.D.
Program Development Facilitator
4017A ALS
Oregon State University
Corvallis OR 97333
Cell: 302-841-1763
From: Beach, Gary
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 1:28 PM
To: White, Susan
Cc: Ramaswamy, Gita
Subject: RE: Cat I reviews
Susan,
As a general rule, library evaluations are not required for Abbreviated Category I proposals.
In the past year, none of the Abbreviated Category I proposals, including the new Department of
Forest Ecosystems and Society, Department of Forest Engineering, Resources, and Management,
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology (move), College of Public Health and Human Sciences,
College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Science, and School of Public Policy (all of which were
approved), as well as those currently being prepared or those that are in the Curriculum Proposal
System (CPS), e.g., School of Arts and Communication (being revised following the APC preliminary
meeting), School of Literature, Writing and Film (currently with Academic Programs), and Department
3
of Animal and Rangeland Sciences (with the Budgets and Fiscal Planning Committee), have required
a library evaluation.
It was noted in the Academic Programs Committee Preliminary Meeting that no library evaluation for
your proposed School of Integrated Plant, Soil, and Insect Science would be required. So I am at a
loss as to why one is being requested by the Budgets and Fiscal Planning Committee.
According to the templates, and this could be confirmed by contacting Jennifer Nutefall in the Valley
Library, the library only evaluates Full Category I and MOU proposals—not Abbreviated Category I
proposals—unless there are substantial changes to the existing degree programs.
•
Library Evaluation (attach library evaluation if the proposal involves an academic program that is
substantially changed or expanded)
•
•
2. Library Evaluation - This evaluation is required of all full Category I proposals and some
abbreviated Category I proposals. It is performed by the Library. After completion of a draft review
meeting with Academic Planning and Assessment, the APA coordinator will send a copy of the
proposal and a request to the Head of Collection Services at the Library, allowing at least three
weeks for their review. Once completed, the proposing unit will receive a copy of the report. Attach
this to the proposal prior to submission and modify the budget table if needed. Note that funds
required by the library to support new programs will be transferred by the Office of Budgets &
Fiscal Planning upon approval of the Category I Proposal.
Even though a library evaluation is usually not required of Abbreviated Category I proposals, because
Abbreviated Category I proposals are generally used to evaluate and approve administrative
reorganizations, mergers, renames of academic units or academic programs, etc. (i.e., those changes
that do not involve any major modifications to the curriculum), review committees and councils may
decide to require the library evaluation as part of the review and approval process. The Library
Evaluation is at their discretion.
Feel free to share this response with Walt if you wish.
Please let me know the outcome or if I can be of further assistance.
--Gary
Gary L. Beach
Curriculum Coordinator
Office of Academic Programs,
Assessment, and Accreditation
500 Kerr Administration Building
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
[email protected]
541-737-2815 (office)
541-760-1103 (cell)
From: White, Susan
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 11:38 AM
To: Beach, Gary
Subject: FW: Cat I reviews
4
I have a question Gary. The following review was made by the budget people:
<image001.png>
However, the Cat I documents say the following:
Library - Allocation of Funding to the Library for New Programs (Category I Proposals)
Upon final approval and campus notification of new academic programs (via the Category I proposal process), the Office of Academic
Planning and Assessment will notify the Office of Budget and Fiscal Planning of the amount specified in the Category I proposal
(one-time non-recurring or four-year annual transfer). The office of Academic Programs authorizes the Office of Budget and Fiscal
Planning to initiate a voucher transfer from the academic unit(s) to the Valley Library.
The Office of Budget and Fiscal Planning will notify the academic unit(s) of the amount that is to be transferred (transfer voucher) to
the Valley Library. If it is a recurring amount, the Office of Budget and Fiscal Planning will set up an annual transfer of the specified
amount not to exceed four years of fund transfer.
Note: Although new programs may be approved several months before their date of implementation, the fund transfer will occur
shortly after Board approval, in order to facilitate the Valley Library's acquisition of monographs and serials required for the new
program.
What am I supposed to do?
Thanks,
Susan White, Ph.D.
Program Development Facilitator
4017A ALS
Oregon State University
Corvallis OR 97333
Cell: 302-841-1763
From: Azarenko, Anita Nina
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 9:44 AM
To: White, Susan
Cc: Karow, Russell
Subject: RE: Cat I reviews
Sue,
Please pull the wording from the Gen Ag proposal related to the libraries. Please look for the wording related to other
budgets and add language that states we approve as CSS and HORT DH’s. Please send us the revisions for approval.
Thank you.
How’s Mom?
Anita and Russ
From: White, Susan
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 6:31 AM
To: Azarenko, Anita Nina; Karow, Russell
Subject: Cat I reviews
Morning,
The Cat I made it through another review step, but with ‘limitations’. Note that the proposal has just one more
review: #12 – CC rep.
5
<image001.png>
<cat I proposal-101711.docx><IPSI Year 3-101711.docx><IPSI Year 2101711.docx><IPSI Year 4-101711.docx><IPSI Year 1-101711.docx>
6
Faculty CV’s available upon request.
Dear Colleagues:
The attached Category I proposal (current draft) describes the creation of the School of Integrated Plant,
Soil, and Insect Science. It is the merger of two departments in the College of Agricultural Sciences- the
Departments of Crop and Soil Science, and Horticulture. Additionally, we have proposed a new
undergraduate major- Integrated Plant, Soil and Insect Science (IPSI) with a number of options. Our new
course compliment is provided in the attached Excel file.
In accordance with the liaison criteria in the Curricular Procedures Handbook, this memo serves as
notification to your department of our intent to create a new School within the College of Agricultural
Sciences and a new undergraduate major.
Please review the attached materials and send your comments, concerns, or statement of support to
Anita by 16 May, if at all possible. We apologize for the short turn around but are scrambling to try to
have our completed CAT I before the Faculty Senate by their June meeting. We sincerely appreciate
your assistance. Per custom these days, we will interpret lack of response as support.
We thank you for your time and input.
Sincerely,
Anita and Russ
Support of merger inferred by no response as stated in letter:
“Per custom these days, we will interpret lack of response as support.”
Support of merger inferred by no response as stated in letter:
“Per custom these days, we will interpret lack of response as support.”
Support of merger inferred by no response as stated in letter:
“Per custom these days, we will interpret lack of response as support.”
Support of merger inferred by no response as stated in letter:
“Per custom these days, we will interpret lack of response as support.”
From: Thompson, Greg [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:20 AM
To: Anita Azarenko ([email protected])
Subject: FW: CAT I liaison
The Agricultural Education and General Agriculture Department supports the merger of the
CSS and HORT Departments into the School of Integrated Plant, Soil, and Insect Science. I
commend you all on your efforts to make the merger a success. The proposal is well written
and very detailed. It is evident that the writers and collaborators have put a lot of effort and
detail into this merger and School.
Best Wishes,
Greg
Greg Thompson, PhD
Professor & Department Head
Agricultural Education and General Agriculture
112 Strand Hall
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
(541) 737-1337
[email protected]
Support of merger inferred by no response as stated in letter:
“Per custom these days, we will interpret lack of response as support.”
Support of merger inferred by no response as stated in letter:
“Per custom these days, we will interpret lack of response as support.”
Support of merger inferred by no response as stated in letter:
“Per custom these days, we will interpret lack of response as support.”
Support of merger inferred by no response as stated in letter:
“Per custom these days, we will interpret lack of response as support.”
Support of merger inferred by no response as stated in letter:
“Per custom these days, we will interpret lack of response as support.”
Budget Outline Form
Estimated Costs and Sources of Funds for Proposed Program
Total new resources required to handle the increased workload, if any. If no new resources are required, the budgetary impact should be reported as zero.
Institution: Oregon State University
Program:
Integ Plant, Soil, Insect Science
Academic Year:
2011-2012
Personnel*
Faculty (Include FTE)
Graduate Assistants (Include FTE)
Support Staff (Include FTE)
Fellowships/Scholarships
OPE
Non-recurring
Personnel Subtotal
Other Resources
Library/Printed
Library/Electronic
Supplies and Services
Equipment
Other Expenses
Other Resources Total
Physical Facilities
Construction
Major Renovation
Other Expenses
Physical Facilities Subtotal
GRAND TOTAL
Indicate the year:
1
Prepare one page each of the first four years
Column A
Column B
Column C
Column D
Column E
Column F
From Current
Budgetary Unit
(CSS)
Institutional
Reallocation from
Other Budgetary
Unit (HORT)
From Special State
Appropriation
Request
From Federal
Funds and Other
Grants
From Fees,
Sales and Other
Income
LINE ITEM
TOTAL
0
75000 2 FTE x 6 mnth**
0
0
0
75000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7500
0
7500 0.25 FTE x 6 mnth
Cntr Virtual Ag Staff
0
0
0
0
0
0
35325
0
0
0
35325
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
117825
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20000 moving and wiring
0
0
0
0
20000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
500000
0
20000
500000 start-up
allowance
500000
0
0
0
520000
Center for Virtual Ag
0
0
0
0
0
0
50000
250000
0
0
0
300000
0
0
0
0
0
0
50000
250000
0
0
0
300000
70000
867825
0
0
0
937825
* Salary figures are shown as recurring expenses, i.e., previous year funds are assumed to be in place and only new funds are shown in the table
** As stated in the proposal, we need two additional FTE in teaching to meet program needs. With 50/50 teaching/research positions we need four new positions to meet this goal.
We are proposing to hire two people in 2011-12 with a January start date and two in 2012-13.
Budget Outline Form
Estimated Costs and Sources of Funds for Proposed Program
Total new resources required to handle the increased workload, if any. If no new resources are required, the budgetary impact should be reported as zero.
Institution: Oregon State University
Program:
Integ Plant, Soil, Insect Science
Academic Year:
2012-2013
Personnel*
Faculty (Include FTE)
Graduate Assistants (Include FTE)
Support Staff (Include FTE)
Fellowships/Scholarships
OPE
Non-recurring
Personnel Subtotal
Other Resources
Library/Printed
Library/Electronic
Supplies and Services
Equipment
Other Expenses
Other Resources Total
Physical Facilities
Construction
Major Renovation
Other Expenses
Physical Facilities Subtotal
GRAND TOTAL
Indicate the year:
2
Prepare one page each of the first four years
Column A
Column B
Column C
Column D
Column E
Column F
From Current
Budgetary Unit
(CSS)
Institutional
Reallocation from
Other Budgetary
Unit (HORT)
From Special State
Appropriation
Request
From Federal
Funds and Other
Grants
From Fees,
Sales and Other
Income
LINE ITEM
TOTAL
0
150000 2 FTE x 12 mnth
0
0
0
150000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7500 0.25 FTE x 6 mnth
0
0
0
7500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
69375
0
0
0
69375
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
226875
0
0
0
226875
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
500000
0
0
500000 start-up
allowance
500000
0
0
0
500000
Center for Virtual Ag
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
726875
0
0
0
726875
* Salary figures are shown as recurring expenses, i.e., previous year funds are assumed to be in place and only new funds are shown in the table
** As stated in the proposal, we need two additional FTE in teaching to meet program needs. With 50/50 teaching/research positions we need four new positions to meet this goal.
We are proposing to hire two people in 2011-12 with a January start date and two in 2012-13.
Budget Outline Form
Estimated Costs and Sources of Funds for Proposed Program
Total new resources required to handle the increased workload, if any. If no new resources are required, the budgetary impact should be reported as zero.
Institution: Oregon State University
Program:
Integ Plant, Soil, Insect Science
Academic Year:
2013-2014
Personnel*
Faculty (Include FTE)
Graduate Assistants (Include FTE)
Support Staff (Include FTE)
Fellowships/Scholarships
OPE
Non-recurring
Personnel Subtotal
Other Resources
Library/Printed
Library/Electronic
Supplies and Services
Equipment
Other Expenses
Other Resources Total
Physical Facilities
Construction
Major Renovation
Other Expenses
Physical Facilities Subtotal
GRAND TOTAL
Indicate the year:
3
Prepare one page each of the first four years
Column A
Column B
Column C
Column D
Column E
Column F
From Current
Budgetary Unit
(CSS)
Institutional
Reallocation from
Other Budgetary
Unit (HORT)
From Special State
Appropriation
Request
From Federal
Funds and Other
Grants
From Fees,
Sales and Other
Income
LINE ITEM
TOTAL
0
75000 2FTE x 6 mnth
0
0
0
75000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34000
0
0
0
34000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
109000
0
0
0
109000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Center for Virtual Ag
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
109000
0
0
0
109000
* Salary figures are shown as recurring expenses, i.e., previous year funds are assumed to be in place and only new funds are shown in the table
** As stated in the proposal, we need two additional FTE in teaching to meet program needs. With 50/50 teaching/research positions we need four new positions to meet this goal.
We are proposing to hire two people in 2011-12 with a January start date and two in 2012-13.
Budget Outline Form
Estimated Costs and Sources of Funds for Proposed Program
Total new resources required to handle the increased workload, if any. If no new resources are required, the budgetary impact should be reported as zero.
Institution: Oregon State University
Program:
Integ Plant, Soil, Insect Science
Academic Year:
2014-2015
Personnel*
Faculty (Include FTE)
Graduate Assistants (Include FTE)
Support Staff (Include FTE)
Fellowships/Scholarships
OPE
Non-recurring
Personnel Subtotal
Other Resources
Library/Printed
Library/Electronic
Supplies and Services
Equipment
Other Expenses
Other Resources Total
Physical Facilities
Construction
Major Renovation
Other Expenses
Physical Facilities Subtotal
GRAND TOTAL
Indicate the year:
4
Prepare one page each of the first four years
Column A
Column B
Column C
Column D
Column E
Column F
From Current
Budgetary Unit
(CSS)
Institutional
Reallocation from
Other Budgetary
Unit (HORT)
From Special State
Appropriation
Request
From Federal
Funds and Other
Grants
From Fees,
Sales and Other
Income
LINE ITEM
TOTAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
* Salary figures are shown as recurring expenses, i.e., previous year funds are assumed to be in place and only new funds are shown in the table
0
1. Review - College Approver - Agricultural Sciences
Sent Back by Cary Green Communication Allowance / College of Ag Admin, May 4, 2011 11:51am
Comments
Cary Green (College Approver - Agricultural Sciences) May 4, 2011 11:51am
This version is much improved. A couple of questions remain; these will be sent back on a hardcopy of the document.
Thanks. CJG
2. Review - College Approver - Agricultural Sciences
Approved by Cary Green Communication Allowance / College of Ag Admin, June 8, 2011 10:03am
3. Review - Curriculum Coordinator
Approved by Sarah Williams Coord-Curriculum / Acad Prgms/Assess/Accred, July 6, 2011 2:37pm
Comments
Sarah Williams (Curriculum Coordinator) July 6, 2011 2:37pm
This proposal is being forwarded to Budgets and Fiscal Planning, following revisions made after Academic Programs
Review.
4. Review - Budgets and Fiscal Planning Committee
Sent Back by Sarah Williams Coord-Curriculum / Acad Prgms/Assess/Accred, July 11, 2011 9:10am
Comments
Sarah Williams (Budgets and Fiscal Planning Committee) July 11, 2011 9:10am
Returning the proposal to the Originator to add the signed and revised Transmittal Sheet (SW)
5. Review - Budgets and Fiscal Planning Committee
Sent Back by Sarah Williams Coord-Curriculum / Acad Prgms/Assess/Accred, July 11, 2011 11:35am
Comments
Sarah Williams (Budgets and Fiscal Planning Committee) July 11, 2011 11:35am
Returning proposal at the request of the Originator (SW)
6. Review - Budgets and Fiscal Planning Committee
Sent Back by Walter Loveland, August 15, 2011 11:02am
Comments
Walter Loveland (Budgets and Fiscal Planning Committee) August 15, 2011 11:02am
This is inappropriate for a Cat II proposal. There are budgetary issues involved that demand the review of the
Budgets and Fiscal Planning committee. This should be re-submitted as some form of Cat I proposal to allow that
review. Also the past Chair and I have agreed that review of these proposals will need the full participation of the
Graduate Council in the Fall.
7. Review - Budgets and Fiscal Planning Committee
Approved by Walter Loveland, October 13, 2011 4:49pm
Comments
Walter Loveland (Budgets and Fiscal Planning Committee) October 13, 2011 4:49pm
The Budgets and Fiscal Planning Committee approves this proposal subject to the following conditions which should
be met before further action on this proposal occurs:
1. A Library Assessment must be done and the results incorporated into the proposal.
2. In the Budgets, reference is made to "Institutional Reallocation from Other Budgetary Unit" The proposers must
state what the Other Budgetary Unit is and show evidence that the unit approves the transfer
8. Review - CC Rep - Ag Science (A-E)
Sent Back by Sarah Williams Coord-Curriculum / Acad Prgms/Assess/Accred, October 18, 2011 2:11pm
Comments
Sarah Williams (CC Rep - Ag Science (A-E)) October 18, 2011 2:11pm
Returning to Originator for edits. SW
9. Review - CC Rep - Ag Science (A-E)
Sent Back by Sarah Williams Coord-Curriculum / Acad Prgms/Assess/Accred, November 30, 2011 1:01pm
Comments
Sarah Williams (CC Rep - Ag Science (A-E)) November 30, 2011 1:01pm
Administrator's Note: This proposal is being reviewed by the Graduate Council, even though the GC is not in the
workflow. The GC made its recommendation in the following comments, and the proposal is being returned to the
Originators to address Graduate Council concerns and then resubmit for final Graduate Council review:
All,
Today the Graduate Council met to consider the Category I proposal create an Integrated School of Plant, Soil and
Insect Science. It declined to approve the proposal in its present format and asked that the proposal be returned to
the originators to address certain issues. Can you please arrange for the proposal to move back to the originators
with the following Comments.
1..While discussed briefly, the driving force behind the merger is not clear. What advantages are gained by the
merger? What compensates for the administrative trouble of creating the merger?
2. The “Insect Science” part of the proposal seems weak. There are only two faculty that identify themselves as insect
scientists. Is this enough? The history of a weak, non-sustainable graduate program in Entomology that was
terminated/suspended needs to be discussed, in particular, how this will be made into a viable undergraduate
program and a graduate minor. The INT headcount in 2010 was criticized in the discussion of the graduate program
review. Please reply to these criticisms.
3. The BFP group requested the budget reflect inflation. It does not. The effect of declining support for the SWPS
upon the program should be addressed.
Walt Loveland