cit2002 scap-talk

SCAPSUNY

Student Computing Access Program

Paul Kramer, SUNY Farmingdale

Harry Pence, SUNY Oneonta

SCAPPart I

Origins and HistoryPaul Kramer

SUNY Farmingdale

What’s a “SCAP?”

• The SUNY Student Computing Access Program

• Started in 1983

• Over $75 Million for Student Computing

• Over $75 Million for Student Computing

–Hardware

–Software

What’s a “SCAP?”

Why and HowWas SCAP Invented?

• D.O.B. and the years before SCAP–Distrust of SUNY

–Fear of the Cost of Technology

–Counting Fingers and Keystrokes to Justify a Burroughs


• The Microcomputer Revolution Under Way

• Breakthrough by Alex Rollo and Jerry Komisar

1982


• John Philippo’s Quiet Brainstorm

• John Philippo’s Brainchild

1983

What Hath SCAP Wrought?

• Guidelines–Campus Planning for Student

Computing

–Campus Spending on Student Computing

Keeping Everybody Happy

• Students–Equipment

–Software

–Networks

–Access!!


• SUNY–Happy Students

–Happy Parents

–Happy Faculty

–Happy DOB


• Division of the Budget–Accountability

–Flexibility for SUNY


• Legislature–Support Students

–Voter Satisfaction


• Governor–Fiscal Responsibility

–Voter Satisfaction

SCAPPart II

Present and FutureHarry E. Pence

SUNY Oneonta

Where are we today?

• Better than 90% of students are using computers on almost every campus.

• Campuses say SCAP is a major source of student technology funding.

SCAP is supported by System Administration, Legislators, the Governor’s office and the D.O.B.

• Few academic programs have achieved such strong support from such a wide range of constitutencies.

• Most important, SCAP was a driving force in making SUNY a technology leader!

• Everyone seems to agree that SCAP is an excellent program!

Who is the SCAP Committee?

• It is a subcommittee of SUNY FACT that consists of one administrative liaison, one support person, and a group of volunteer reviewers from SUNY state-operated campuses

• It is an extremely cost-effective program!

What are the goals of SCAP?

• 1. The purpose of SCAP is to fund materials that provide direct student access to computing technologies.

• Many important functions, such as faculty development, support personnel, campus infrastructure, and supplies are not allowed under SCAP.

2. To minimize the amount of time and effort that campus SCAP liaison people must spend in documenting the expenditure of the funds(i.e. to keep the users happy).

• 3. To maintain SCAP’s reputation as a cost- effective, focused program, that helps SUNY keep up with technological change.

• We must maintain this reputation or the funding will stop!

• 4. To encourage long-term planning and allocation of campus funds to computing.

• These goals are often in conflict!

Campus SCAP liaison people want to minimize the amount of time they spend documenting the use of SCAP money.

• State decision makers want to know exactly what they are getting for their tax dollars.• Campuses want more freedom to spend the money on projects that they think are

important.• The more diffuse the goals of the program are, the harder it is to justify.• SCAP is a continual balancing act!

Are there any problems with SCAP?

• 1. Instructional technology has become more important and more complex.

• Originally, many administrators and faculty looked upon technology funding as a harmless frill; now it is seen to be crucial to the campus mission. It attracts much more attention!

The SCAP Committee has continually adjusted the rules to respond to changing technologies and campus conditions.

• SCAP was originally intended to encourage innovation; it has increasingly become focused on maintaining the campus infrastructure that it created.

• Does SCAP still do a good job of encouraging campus innovation?• If not, what can be done to redefine SCAP so that it accomplishes this?

2. Head-count funding has remained constant (actually decreased a little).

• The SUNY budget allocation for SCAP is in a lump-sum, even though the campus allocations are on a head-count basis; dollars per student has decreased .

• Many campuses have implemented technology fees, to provide additional funding.• What do campus technology fees say about the need for SCAP?

3. Community colleges are not included in the program.• The original SCAP legislation was a compromise; it was not the best possible

program, just the most that seemed likely to pass in a short time. • One of these compromises eliminated money for support of faculty computing! • Some community college presidents were opposed to the idea of ear-marked

funds, so this was a harder sell.

5. The people responsible for the development of SCAP viewed it as a way to leverage inadequate funds.

• With the availability of other funding, does SCAP still provide enough funds to act as an effective lever.

• State fiscal problems for next year seem to make it unlikely that additional SCAP funding will be available

• Do we still need the power of the lever?• If so, how can SCAP provide this?

What does the future hold for SCAP?

• It continues to be a cornerstone of technology development in SUNY.

• What adjustments, if any, need to be made to insure that SCAP continues to be effective?

Some Key Questions.• Does SCAP still do a good job of encouraging campus innovation?• What do campus technology fees say about the need for SCAP?• Does SCAP still provide enough funds to act as an effective lever on campus actions?• Since student access is almost universal, do we need to change the name? • What do you expect from SCAP?

Continuity, Opportunity,Progress

This presentation can be found atwww.farmingdale.edu/~kramerpr

Paul Kramer: [email protected]

Harry Pence: [email protected]

SCAP

cit2002 scap-talk

Documents