PE Task Force Report
3.26.2014
Broad Charge and Questions to Frame the PE Task Force Discussion
The PE Task Force is charged with reviewing the current programs (minors, certificates, and courses) offered by the PE Department.
Through investigation and analysis of the curricular and learning needs of students, personnel policies, and financial needs of the
College, the TF is asked to develop recommendations regarding effective structural models of these programs. This report is due to be
presented to the Vice Presidents of Academic Affairs and Student Development (Maria Thompson and Steve Perry) no later than
March 28, 2014. Charge to task force
Membership: Tracy Allen, Janet Day (Co-chair), Richie Lee, Eileen McClafferty, Snapper Petta, Chris Popovici, Rachael Price, Bill
Proulx, Tracey Ranieri, Susan Turell (Co-chair), Jim Zians
Data gathered:
Data from SUNY Oneonta IR office:
Total Seats Offered
Enrollment
synopsisC:\Users\turellsc\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\GYKER0WJ\Copy of enrollments synopsis 2002-2013.xlsx
# and type of Instructors
Class Instructor Distribution
PACT courses & Non-Pact course offerings/enrollments (2002-2013) Enrollments 2002-2013
PHED Minors/Grads
PHED minors/grads
PHED Grade Distribution
PHED grade distribution
Credit Bearing Classes
Credit bearing classes
Graduated PHED Credits
Graduated PHED credits
Literature review:
Strand Article
Health Related fitness
Role of parks & recreation
NRPA Information
Trends in wellness/health professional
Internet searches:
Recreational Environmental scan
Outdoor opportunity program
Dept/Course related structural comparisons nationally
Academic structural program level - SUNY Comprehensives
Limited survey
List of Certifications (current/possible)
Sample curricula for a Health and Fitness Science major
Sample Health and Fitness
Syracuse University
SUNY Cortland
Indiana University
SUNY data:
SUNY policies - personnel + $
Physical Activity Classes
Student Survey
PHED Student Survey
Interviews/meetings:
Interview with Snapper Petta
Interview with Al Sosa
Interview with Michelle Thibault
Interview with Tracey Ranieri
1
Interview with Parks and Rec supervisor Bill Zimmerman
Consultation with athletic directors at SUNYAC
Presentation and discussion with PHED
Campus-wide informational forum Forum
MinutesC:\Users\turellsc\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\GYKER0WJ\Appendix B.pdf
Process information and agendas
We met 10 times as a group, prior to a meeting with the Vice Presidents. A brief outline of the meetings and agenda
follows.
Nov 5, 2013- preliminary organizational meeting to review charge and determine data needed
Dec 2, 2013 – review list of data to date and preparation for data analysis
Jan 15, 2014 – preliminary discussion of data reviewed to date
Jan 22, 2014 – review of course criteria to recommend credit based, not for credit
Jan 29, 2014 – meeting with Al Sosa
Feb 12, 2014 – meeting with Michelle Thibault
Feb 26, 2014 – discussion of questions to frame campus forum and criteria to be used for structural
home for programs (major, minor, certifications)
March 5, 2014 – Campus forum shared process to date, timeline, and solicited questions
March 12, 2014 – finalize recommendations
March 19, 2014 – continue recommendations and write final report
March 26, 2014 – finalize report and present to Vice Presidents
Assumptions:
To frame our work, we agreed on several assumptions as follows.
 Program level:
 Health and Fitness Sciences Major, submitted to the Noel Levitz process, will be developed and offered,
pending Noel Levitz report
 Outdoor leadership major, submitted to the Noel Levitz process, will be developed and offered
 Current minor(s) will continue to be offered
 Current certifications will continue to be offered
At the time of this report, we do not have the Noel Levitz environmental scan data to inform our recommendations
regarding a structural home for any given program. Therefore, we developed the following criteria and recommend
their use to decide academic departmental homes for majors, minors, and certifications:
The task force discussed various criteria around resources (e.g., people, space, equipment) would support the
administrative placement of programs. We suggest the following guidelines:
 The departmental home be assigned based on where the simple majority of the curriculum for the
program would be taught.
 The departmental home must have sufficient qualified, tenure-track positions to support the
curriculum.
 The departmental home must have dedicated space and equipment. We believe that dedicated equals
guaranteed access, but can include sharing with current available resources. There is a long history at
SUNY Oneonta of successful sharing of space and equipment, which will serve program development
well for the foreseeable future. We think this shared stewardship is congruent with SUNY directions,
as well as the developing AMP within Academic Affairs.
 Course level:
2
Criteria used to delineate academic credit at the course level should be:
1. The course meets a program learning outcome (program can be a major, minor, or certification if part
of an academic program). The course may meet a prerequisite or elective need in other programs
housed outside of PHED.
2. The course carries an academic component, such as an LA attribute.
We applied those criteria to classes in the current catalog. The PHED department is conducting a pilot study fall 2014 and
spring 2015, using those criteria to offer only those classes that meet these academic criteria. Please refer to suggested
classes by category <link here>.
Recommendations:
We approached these recommendations with the assumption that the administrative, structural home(s) for academic
programs and certifications, and not-for-credit experiences, should provide resources and support that will enable the
programs and people associated with them to thrive. This necessitates that regardless of the centralization (or
decentralization) of the programs to home departments, we recommend the following:
 the programs MUST be central to the mission of the home department and
 current and future resources must follow any structural/administrative assignment.
A. Structural home for major(s)- (if viable)
 Upon examination of existing synergies and the criteria above re: qualifications, curriculum,
certifications of instructors, we recommend that majors in Health and Fitness Science and
Outdoor Leadership should remain in a department of PHED (to be renamed Health and Fitness
Department per previous recommendation by the department)
 We recommend that sufficient staffing be allotted to support these majors. We believe that given
the specialized nature of credentials, the department would be well served by a mix of terminal
degree tenure track, lecturers, and adjuncts, with the right synergies to support both/either the
Health and Fitness Science major and the Outdoor Leadership major. Please refer to section F
below.
B. Structural home for minor(s) We recommend that the criteria used for majors apply to minors, and that viable minors remain in
the PHED department.
 We believe that it is beyond the charge of this task force to address the structural home for the
Dance minor, but encourage decision makers to examine its placement using the same criteria as
for other program placement.

Structural home and model for not-for-credit experiences
Course by criteria category
We examined various models, including continuing education, recreation and intramurals.
Continuing Education does not appear to be a viable model at this time. We recommend that the
Division of Student Development consider offering the not-for-credit experiences to their area, to
determine which of these might fit into student demand under the models of recreation and/or
intramurals.
C. Structural home and models for certifications
 We recommend that the criteria used for majors apply to certificates, and that viable certificates
remain in the PHED department.
D. Course recommendations:
 We recommend that the home department for the major/minor programs examine the curriculum
to delete out of date courses; to examine all courses given above criteria to realign the course’s
category as needed. For example, several courses currently meet the academic for-credit category.
 We recommend that courses that do not align with the recommend major/minor/certifications
above be allowed to move to other relevant and interested departments.
3

We examined the data and determined that there is no compelling need to change the limits of
PHED credits with a PACT attribute that apply to earning a degree from SUNY Oneonta.
Few students (approximately 6%) take more than 3 credits with PACT attributes toward their
degree in any given academic year, and none have done so since fall 2008. To limit these
credits would negatively affect students in PHED programs.
o Note: We recognize that the PACT attribute may not accurately reflect course
content. Therefore, we recommend that the faculty in the PHED department examine
and align the PACT attribute in the near future.
E. Faculty recommendations:
 We examined normative practices in this discipline related to faculty qualifications. We
recommend that a model similar to that of business be applied; that is, that after a
departmental vetting, faculty can be hired based on professional qualifications (PQ) such as
industry certification, in addition to those hired who are Academically Qualified (AQ).
Precedence exists beyond business as well; for example, in Dietetics, a chef was recently
hired to teach based on professional qualifications only.
 We recommend that the department provide resources to help the PQ faculty maintain their
certifications in a parallel process to providing resources for professional development for
those who are AQ.
 We recommend that the department develop policies/protocols for 1) hiring PQ faculty and
2) how best to find and distribute resources for full time and contingent faculty of both
qualification categories (e.g., internal budgets, grants)
The charge asked the Task Force to analyze and review data to make recommendations regarding the programs and
courses in the PHED department and the impact on structural organization. Our process followed the charge. We engaged
with the data to inform our recommendations, and carefully avoided pre-conceived conclusions. The questions we were
asked to address have been unanswered for many years. Therefore, we urge you to act on our recommendations quickly,
so that the College can move forward regarding these programs and courses. Thank you for the opportunity to serve.
4