Department of Urban Planning
College of Social Sciences
Program Planning Committee Report to the Provost
May 3, 2013
The Department’s program emphasizes the following: (1) preparing a diverse student body with the skills
to become leaders in the planning profession and a commitment towards lifelong learning; (2) providing
students with a strong education in general planning and the opportunity to specialize in a subfield; (3)
enhancing the knowledge and practice of planning through research, scholarship, and creative activities;
and (4) creating an environment that supports teaching and learning, research, community service, and
shared governance in the MUP program.
Currently, the Department of Urban Planning offers the following programs:
 Master of Urban Planning (MUP)
 Minor in Urban Studies
 Certificate programs in: (1) Applications of Technology in Planning; (2) Community
 Design and Development; (3) Environmental Planning; (4) Land Use and Transportation
Planning
The department cross-lists several courses with other departments including: AFAM (133, 145); ANTH
(126, 127); DSIT (151, 152); ENVS (136, 142, 169, 178, 179); and PADM (228, 240). None of the
courses are required courses for students in those specific programs listed; they serve as elective courses
only.
Strengths of the Program
Since the last program planning review and PAB site visit (2005), the department was housed in the
College of Social Work, which was shortly thereafter dissolved and then placed in the College of Social
Sciences. This administrative arrangement has made it easier for the Department to support an
interdisciplinary focus and interact with closely related disciplines such as Anthropology, Economics,
Environmental Studies, Geography, Political Science, Public Administration, and Sociology. Outcomes of
this move have been:
Curriculum Enhancement: Increased emphasis on planning examples and experiences from outside of
the San Francisco Bay Area throughout the curriculum.
Physical Facilities: Several changes/upgrades to our computing facilities have been made in order to
support student learning. These include hardware upgrades, as well as software upgrades to support
mapping, graphic design, and statistical analysis.
Increased Graduation Rates: The 3-year graduation rate has increased every year since fall 2004, from
26.9% to 55.6%. Since many students attend part-time, 5-year graduation rates are also relevant.
Expanding Continuing Education for Practitioners: The Department currently offers four certificate
programs to support ongoing professional development, which also serve as feeders into the MUP
program. Since 2006, the Department has awarded 23 certificates.
Develop Feeder Linkages to Undergraduate Disciplines: The department offers a Minor in Urban
Studies and is open to any SJSU student.
Increase Financial Resources: Since the Department’s last review, faculty secured more than $2.5
million in external funding.
1
Diversity and Leadership: The program is one of the most diverse planning programs in the U.S., with
63% non-White and 58% female students.
Community Engagement: Six neighborhoods that have partnered with the department to develop
community plans that have received public funding for the projects outlined in their plans, for a total of
$31.1 million. Since 2005, over 400 MUP students and 8 faculty (T/TT and lecturers) have participated in
CommUniverCity. Collectively, MUP faculty and students have engaged more than 3,500 community
residents and invested over 12,000 hours in participatory action research.
Challenges Facing the Program
Need for Practitioner in Residence: Students need to meet and collaborate directly with planning
practitioners who model professional practice and provide valuable outside networking opportunities.
Assigned Time for Chair: Currently, 0.2 assigned time is awarded; given program with external
accreditation, and the additional advising requirements for graduate students, the current assigned time is
not sufficient.
Lack of Studio Space: The department has made it a priority to search for space where up to 30 students,
along with instructors and guest reviewers (for a total of 40 people) can work in teams around large
tables, with sufficient wall area for display, and a locked storage area in or near the room where materials
and supplies can be kept during the semester.
Assessment
Program-level student learning outcomes for graduate training were developed during the period under
review, taking into account the PAB knowledge areas, faculty input, and the Program’s mission and
goals. Individual courses (and the assignments within the courses) were mapped onto each SLO, and a 7year assessment plan was established, which matched the PAB accreditation cycle. The formal SLO
assessment process began in academic year 2005-2006 and the Department has made a number of
changes as a result of the assessment process and faculty discussion. For example, in 2009, an identified
need for consistency in student outcomes across course sections was addressed by developing a
comprehensive set of course learning objectives for each of the MUP program’s core courses.
Both direct and indirect measures were utilized. PLOs were assessed indirectly via an alumni survey and
an exit survey for students. More direct assessments of PLOs were accomplished via course or applied
assignments integral to the program. The use of imbedded measures was an excellent way to gather good
information regarding learning efficiently; however, grades were used as the primary indicator of
learning. While grades represent the extent to which a student has successfully met the faculty member's
requirements and expectations for a course, the many factors contributing to an assigned grade makes it
almost impossible to make inferences about what a student knows or can do by only looking at the grades
for a course (Rogers, 2003).
The department is certainly on the right track and continues to revise their assessment approach as needed
and completed a self-assessment in 2011-12 using the WASC rubric for PLOs. Suggestions going
forward include: 1) eliminating the use of grades as indicators of student learning; 2) incorporating more
direct measures of PLOs at the course or practicum levels; 3) identifying the level of learning expected
within each course for each PLO. For example, whether a course allows knowledge or skill development
at the introductory or more advanced level, or other relevant dimension (basic, applied, integrative) the
faculty would find useful as they explore areas of strength and areas in need of improvement.
2
Finally, the department should be commended for posting up-to-date assessment plans and results on their
website. This information can be very helpful in helping students understand the goals of the program
and recognize the emphasis on student learning and success, and facilitates the public accountability
emphasized by accrediting agencies.
Next Steps
The final step in the program planning process is to develop an action plan and schedule a final meeting
with Provost Junn (or her designee), AVP of Undergraduate Studies Jaehne, AVP of Graduate Studies
and Research Stacks, Dean Bienenfeld, and Department Chair Agrawal. The Chair may invite directors of
programs within the department. The department should contact staff in the Office of Undergraduate
Studies to schedule the final meeting. The following topics for discussion are summarized from the
reports:
● Creative ways of finding studio space within SJSU or externally (within the community) for
faculty, student, and practitioner teams;
● Expanding the Certificate Program to reach more professionals, possibly considering satellite
locations (this might provide studio space);
● Seeking a Practitioner (for a limited time) that is currently looking to retire and willing to invest
in SJSU;
● Moving forward with the proposed credential program (CRED).
Recommendation
The Program Planning Committee recommends acceptance of the Program Plan. The Program Plan
provided a thorough examination of the issues and explanation of plans for subsequent reviewers. The
next Program Plan for all programs in the department will be due to the College Dean Bienenfeld, in
spring 2019.
Spring 2013 Program Planning Committee members:
Debra Caires (Chair)
Yasue Kodama Yanai
Michael Crump
Amy D’Andrade
Anthony Raynsford
Wenbin Wei
Alaka Rao
Sutee Sujitparapitaya
Jinny Rhee
Dennis Jaehne
Julio Soto
Jeffrey Hummel
Pam Stacks
Diana Wu
Lynda Heiden
Linda Main
Mary Wilson
Mary Calegari
CC:
Asha Weinstein Agrawal, Chair, Department of Urban Planning
Sheila Bienenfeld, Dean, College of Social Sciences
Jan English-Lueck, Associate Dean, College of Social Sciences
Shannon Bros-Seemann, Chair, Curriculum and Research
Dennis Jaehne, AVP Undergraduate Studies
Pam Stacks, AVP Graduate Studies and Research
3
Appendix
Description of Department and Programs
The Department of Urban and Regional Planning is based in the College of Social Sciences. It offers:
Master of Urban Planning (48 units) accredited by the Planning Accreditation Board (PAB).
Students admitted only in Fall.
Minor in Urban Studies (14 units)
Certificate programs (open to upper-division undergraduate or graduate degree students
enrolled in any program at San José State. Members of the public who hold an undergraduate
degree may also complete the certificate programs through SJSU's Open University)
●
Applications of Technology in Planning (16 units)
●
Community Design and Development (15 units)
●
Environmental Planning (will be replaced in Fall 2013 with a Certificate in Real Estate
Planning -16 units)
●
Transportation and Land Use Planning (16 units)
Since 2005, over 400 masters students and 8 faculty (T/TT and lecturers) have participated in
CommUniverCity. This is a partnership between the University and local neighborhoods in San Jose.
Six of the neighborhoods that have partnered with the Department have received public funding for a total
of $31.1 million.
The Department also runs what seems to be an ORU –the Institute for Metropolitan Studies and is
involved with the Mineta Transportation Institute.
In 2011-2012 the Department revised the core electives in the Masters program and moved most core
course from 3 to 4 units in order to give students the opportunity to hone their skills through various
activities outside of class, such as: community engagement by organizing and attending community
workshops; participating in neighborhood-, city-, and regional-level planning fora; working for the
community in various service learning activities such as surveys and professional advice. The capstone
course was moved from 6 to 8 units.
There is a strong focus in the curriculum on experiential learning techniques such as case study analysis,
peer-led discussions, and group-oriented studio projects. The changes were approved by the various
University curriculum committees with strong approval for the increased hands on enhancement of the
field component and a more streamlined, non repetitive and updated curriculum.
The Department has a very strong Advisory Committee with representatives from the planning
profession, students, alumni, community interests, and related academic disciplines.
Program learning outcomes and assessments are clearly stated (and being revised to comply with new
accreditation standards coming from the PAB)

Statement of Mission and Educational Objectives

Knowledge, Skills, Values
4

Syllabi, course descriptions and learning objectives (learning objectives are stated within each
class and linked to the PAB program learning objectives)
The RDE for Fall 2011 showed a headcount of 109 students; the program plan for Fall 2012 showed a
headcount of 110 students. Fall 2011 showed an SFR of 11. The PAB requires an SFR of no more than
10.
Most students are drawn from the local area. The students are diverse: 63% non-White and 58% female.
Faculty
Program plan lists 5 T/TT faculty. Six are listed on the Web site (2 Professors; 3 Associate; 1 Assistant).
Part-time Faculty/Lecturers
Program plan lists 14 (Fall 2012); 11 (Spring 2012); 21 listed on web site.
Scholarly, University, and Professional Activity
The faculty maintain an active research and publication program in addition to their teaching. There is a
strong focus on the dissemination of empirical research. The CVs indicate a strong record of peer
reviewed articles, conference presentations, professional research and consulting reports, and community
planning activities.
Internal and External Funding
● $2.5 million in external funding between 2005 and 2012.
● A donation of $50,000 by a late faculty member to upgrade the computer mapping and simulation
lab.
● The new Certificate in Real Estate Development has been given $100,000 in financial support
from an alumnus and former lecturer.
Clerical Support
0.4
Use of Technology, Equipment and Facilities
The new certificate in real estate development will be delivered using a mix of online classes and face-toface meetings for each course.

A computer lab (WSQ 208); a mini lab in WSQ 218e.

Not enough studio space for large scale maps and graphical materials.
College Committee Summary
N/A
External Reviewer (Key Points) Recommendations (December 2011)
The Department was granted a four year re-accreditation (January 1st 2013-December 31st 2014) which
may be extended to six years if the following conditions are addressed by September 1st 2014.
PAB is concerned that with the program’s impending shift in credit hours, from three to four,
students could graduate in less than two years and without the core set of knowledge, skills, and
values articulated in the accreditation standards. Accordingly, the Board is requesting the
following additional information in the 2014 report:
5
A
B
C
D
E
Evidence of compliance with the pre-condition to accreditation which states that a master’s
degree be a minimum of two academic years of full-time study or the equivalent;
A listing of courses students are required to take over a two-year timeframe in order to
graduate;
A list of all courses eliminated, together with the related syllabi;
A list of all new courses added, together with the related syllabi; and
A list of all courses changed to four-credit hours from three, with both the “before” and
“after” related syllabi.
In addition the Department has to provide an update on:
● Mission goals and objectives
● Curriculum –legal studies to be less California centric and increased attention on equity
and social justice classes
● Increased studio space. Recommend finding space off campus
Although not part of the conditions for an extra two years the accreditation body is concerned that the
SFR is creeping too high and is bordering on going over the 10:1.
External Reviewers
Gary Sands, Professor Emeritus Urban Planning Program
Wayne State University, Michigan
Siddhartha Sen, Ph.D.
Professor and Chairperson
Department of City and Regional Planning School of Architecture and
Planning Morgan State University, Baltimore MD
Lee M. Brown, FAICP, President Teska Associates, Inc.
627 Grove Avenue
Evanston, IL
Dean’s Report (2/13/2013)
Strongly supportive:
 Strong assessment work
 High quality degree
 High quality community service
 Stresses the importance of finding adequate studio space
The department is one of the College's strongest. It is ably led, forward-looking, and does a laudable
job using meager resources to excellent effect.
6