|
STANDARD
2 - PLANNING AND EVALUATION
promoting a culture of evidence
Introduction
| Description | Appraisal
| Projection
Introduction
In this chapter of the self-study we present a brief history
and an analysis of the institution's experiences with
planning and evaluation since 1990, the year of our last comprehensive
evaluation for continuing accreditation. In that ten-year
period the institution has conducted numerous program and
unit reviews and has taken steps toward instituting a planning
process. Almost all of these efforts have been in reaction
to outside directives or requirements, either of governing
bodies or accrediting agencies for specific programs. Despite
all the activity generated either by mandated program and
process review or reactions to budget crises and subsequent
efforts at reallocation, the institution is just beginning
to develop procedures for focused and systematic planning
and evaluation. We are in the early stages of changing the
institutional culture from one which regards planning and
evaluation as impositions or add-ons, to one which regards
them as integral elements promoting institutional effectiveness
and accountability at all levels.
Attempts to plan yielded to crisis management in the early
1990s as the institutional context of the university changed
and the campus suffered through a series of disabling budget
cuts from 1989 to 1992. The long-term impact of this period
was to make higher education in Massachusetts (and elsewhere)
more dependent on enrollments (i.e., fees) for funding and
to shift the support base from state-supported to state-assisted.
These legacies of the early 1990s were aggravated by a marked
decline in the number of high school graduates in the state,
and a critical public and political environment that demanded
more accountability and assessment measures for education
in general. In this context of re-organization and crisis
the cycle of reviews and the five-year plans of the 1980s
disappeared from the radar screen, and institution-wide planning
and evaluation in the early ‘90s became short range and
geared especially toward cutbacks and "reallocation."
The inclusion of Southeastern Massachusetts University in
the newly expanded University of Massachusetts in 1991 changed
the context for planning and evaluation at the new UMass Dartmouth
and also provided the setting for recovery: a gradual reversing
of the budget reduction cycle, a stabilization of the top
administrative positions, and an eventual recovery and turn
around of the 10-year decline in enrollment, beginning in
1998. The fact that planning and evaluation did not emerge
and flourish in this period of relative stability and growth
can be largely attributed to an administrative style that
has been more ad hoc and entrepreneurial than deliberative.
However, the impressive growth and substantive changes that
have taken place since 1993, while often exhibiting characteristics
of randomness, have, in fact, been built on long-term trends
and are generally congruent with the mission of the university.
Also, earlier attempts to establish a real planning process
for the institution are now beginning to bear fruit.
The System
For UMass Dartmouth and the other campuses in the University
system, the period between 1992 and 1998 has been dominated
by efforts to formulate new goals and then to monitor and
be accountable for progress in meeting them. As established
modes of evaluation have ceased, new ones have emerged in
rapid succession. In 1992, the University of Massachusetts
Board of Trustees approved a vision statement and instructed
each of the campuses to design their own vision or mission
statement based on it. (See Standard One.) Then, in June,
1993, the Trustees promulgated four main priorities for UMass:
Reaffirming Teaching and Learning, Embracing Diversity and
Pluralism, Promoting Economic Development, and Advancing the
Distinctive Goals of Each Campus. These criteria were identified
as underpinning a mandated strategic planning process, which
asked each campus to "establish specific goals in each
area appropriate to its character and context, and to be accountable
for tracking progress toward those goals using measurable
benchmarks and indicators reported annually to the Board and
the public." This was the opening salvo in a continuing,
but fluctuating, attempt by the Trustees to establish a system
of planning and evaluation for the University. Following this
was a related initiative introduced in 1994, more specifically
designed to enhance "accountability," that required
each campus to develop specific Goals and Indicators for the
four priorities announced in 1993. The Trustees envisioned
that their 1994 Goals and Indicators initiative would become
a comprehensive mechanism for annual assessment. However,
it proved to be overly complex and unwieldy, and the new UMass
president, responding in part to a mandate from the State
Board of Higher Education, helped re-shape the system into
a new, less complex form, the Performance Measurement System
(PMS), currently in effect
Performance Measurement uses a common structure for all UMass
campuses (except the medical center), with individualized
targets. PMS encompasses a range of periodic special studies
(e.g., libraries, K-12 outreach, economic development activities);
a list of annually monitored specific targets for academic
quality (such as SATs, high school GPAs, and admissions yields),
academic access (costs and financial aid), research, fund-raising,
and fiscal indicators (operating margin, financial cushion,
debt service, and endowment); and a periodic mandated academic
program review called Academic Quality Assessment and Development
(AQAD). AQAD has re-introduced a standard cycle for academic
program reviews for the system. Each department will produce,
as part of its self-study and review, an Action Plan which
will form the basis for setting goals and objectives and measuring
outcomes.
At the same time (1995) that Performance Measurement was
becoming the standard for program evaluation for the system,
the Board of Trustees announced its Year 2000 Reallocation
plan. This effort has had important consequences for academic
programs. Its goals were to respond to continuing budgetary
constraints and political pressures by requiring each campus
to have reallocated at least 15% of its core budget from low
priority to high priority programs by the year 2000. The UMass
Trustees receive annual reports on the progress of this reallocation
effort. Essential to the Year 2000 process of reallocation
were two related programs, each designed to release resources
to areas of priority: an early retirement program and a project
in administrative redesign (ARD).
The State Board of Higher Education (BHE) has not taken as
direct a role in planning and evaluation as have the Trustees
for the University system, but has assumed an active role
in the areas of standards and accountability. Of particular
influence has been a program to raise admissions requirements
and reduce remediation. The Board has mandated changes in
the admissions process, which place more emphasis on SATs
and high school GPA rather than class rank for freshman admission.
There has been concern throughout the system that these changes
might cause or accelerate declines in admissions of students
of color. In 1998, the BHE required each of the state's
higher education institutions to undergo an audit by the State
Auditor General of their student admissions and enrollment
data. The BHE has also mandated a statewide standardized placement
testing process for incoming freshman students (that will
replace a well-designed existing institutional comprehensive
placement-testing program on this campus). This action is
part of a larger plan to link higher education testing and
admissions to the competency testing now being implemented
in school districts through the State Frameworks and Comprehensive
Assessment System (MCAS).
Academic Program Review - UMass Dartmouth
At UMass Dartmouth, the decade of the 1990s began in deep
fiscal crisis. The internal response was embodied in two complementary
ad hoc committees, the Committee on Cost Reduction and Reallocation
(CCRR), and the Revenue Enhancement Committee (REC), of 1990-91.
While the REC scrambled to identify new sources of revenue
in grants and fund-raising the CCRR focused on cost reduction
and "was unable to complete recommendations for redeployment
of funds." Its main task was coordination of a rapid
academic program review, requiring each department to describe,
evaluate, and defend its programs. Based on these findings
the Interim Chancellor announced the elimination or consolidation
of thirteen academic majors. Given the hectic pace of the
program reviews and their imposition from the top, the findings
and program cuts were controversial and divisive, especially
since their focus was primarily cost savings, not institutional
improvement.
About half of the program changes announced in 1992 were
implemented, but budget shortfalls continued and, in the fall,
the Interim Chancellor initiated a campus planning process,
based in a faculty/administrative body called the Academic
Planning Task Force (APTF) and chaired by a senior faculty
member. This effort was intended both to begin to heal the
divisions and mistrust engendered by the Cost Reduction process
by re-directing planning toward positive developments, and
to allow the campus to respond to Trustee initiatives. The
first responsibility of the APTF was to prepare a new mission
statement for the campus (the Vision statement of 1992), in
accordance with the Trustees system-wide mission statement
of the same year. The 1992 vision statement still serves as
UMass Dartmouth's official statement of its mission.
The APTF then produced, through consultation with all segments
of the university, a comprehensive strategic plan, Building
on our Strengths, presented to the Interim Chancellor in 1993.
The Building on our Strengths plan made important strides
toward enunciating the institution's concept of itself
in a new environment. The report articulated key institutional
strategic decisions, most of them based on existing, maturing
trends: to expand enrollments, including at the graduate level;
to develop marine sciences and technology as an instructional
and research theme in a range of academic programs; to renew
efforts to achieve AACSB accreditation of the business school;
to increase graduate programs and specifically to develop
the Electrical Engineering Ph.D. program and plan for other
doctoral programs; to expand activities in economic development
and K-12 outreach; and to increase research and scholarly
productivity across campus. A subsequent decision added Portuguese
Studies to these priorities. A fundamental aspect of the plan
was its conclusion that the university was operating with
poor economies of scale; its program range was, and is, broad
and its fixed costs are a drain on resources. Its core recommendations
that student FTEs should be increased to 7,500 and that programs
should be added, especially at the graduate level, has been
influential as a general planning concept, but it was not
pursued specifically. It was based on assumptions about a
direct funding-formula link between increased enrollments
and increased funding to the campus, that proved mistaken.
In 1993, Peter H. Cressy assumed the role of Chancellor,
at the beginning of a period of rising revenues, based in
part on general economic recovery and in part on his attempts
to gain greater parity in funding for UMass Dartmouth within
the new system. His six-year period of leadership (1993-1999)
was also marked by rapid change and progress in implementing
or advancing several important long-term projects and initiatives:
e.g., the marine science curriculum and lab, AACSB accreditation
for the college of Business, increased funded-research activity
and successful grant-writing, the establishment of the university's
first free-standing Ph.D. program, the growth of graduate
programs and enrollments, and the strengthening of fund-raising,
outreach activities, and educational collaboratives with area
school systems.
The year 1995 was significant for planning and evaluation
activities at UMass Dartmouth: UMass President Michael Hooker,
issued his Action Plan for the Year 2000, which called for
program review and overall reallocation of resources as explained
above. In response to this initiative the campus's Academic
Planning Task Force was asked to produce an updated version
of its earlier report, submitted in June as "Building
on Our Strengths" Revisited. It was hoped that this new
strategic plan would help guide the university in its mandated
program review and reallocation efforts. The Year 2000 process
comprised our most substantive and influential academic program
review of this decade. Starting in May of 1995, each academic
department performed a self-study and responded to a range
of questions. The Office of Institutional Research (established
in 1994) produced a comprehensive databook to lend consistency
and comparability to the results. This publication made available
not only customary student admissions, enrollment, and graduation
information but also departmental tables relating budgetary
and staff resources to student instruction. The immediate
product of the program reviews was a classification of all
academic programs into categories, with recommendations for
the elimination of several programs. Although there were consolidations
of programs in CVPA and Engineering (which all but eliminated
its Technology programs in favor of its graduate programs),
and the transfer of the departments of Physics and Computer
Sciences (A&S) and Textiles (Bus.) to Engineering, no
departments, except for Electrical Engineering Technology,
were eliminated because of the Year 2000 reallocation process.
The final step in the planning efforts cited above was the
production by the Academic Planning Task Force, in collaboration
with the Council of Academic Deans, of a planning document
called the Shared Academic Agenda. The document was approved
by the Faculty Senate and adopted by the Chancellor in 1997.
Production of a separate planning statement for graduate studies
was delegated by the APTF to the Graduate Council. The graduate
plan was accepted by the Senate and adopted in 1998. When
it approved the Shared Academic Agenda in 1997, the Faculty
Senate also recommended that the APTF propose a process to
link the Agenda to the university's budget development
and allocation process. A final proposal was presented to
the Faculty Senate and approved by the Chancellor in 1998.
The result is a comprehensive budgeting process first used
in a trial run to form the FY00 budget.
Planning and Evaluation in Various Units
Each College of the university has been asked to formulate
a mission statement (consonant with those of the campus and
wider university) and then to articulate strategic plans related
to their mission. These documents have been prepared with
involvement from academic departments, some of which have
formulated their own mission and priorities statements.
Similarly, many service units on campus have mission and
priorities statements. The Division of Student Affairs has
a detailed mission and strategic plan, with subordinate plans
for the different units (see Standard Six). These units report
evaluation data and progress toward meeting goals in annual
reports. Similarly, most service units in Academic Affairs
(Admissions, Financial Aid, Academic Resources Center, College
Now Program) and the university Library prepare a variety
of analyses and annual summaries. Such reports and data about
activities are shared around campus. One consequence of our
activities in Administrative ReDesign has been the formulation
of goals and objectives for other administrative support systems
such as those of the fiscal office.
Annual personnel evaluations of administrators in the professional
union, the Educational
Services Unit, are now based in part on achievement of listed
goals and objectives for the individual employee. These agreements
are developed jointly by the individual and her/his immediate
supervisor. A systematic annual evaluation that includes both
rankings and narrative sections monitors the individual's
performance and progress in meeting goals.
Support for a Culture and Practice of Evaluation
Some campus administrators have become accustomed to the
use of contemporary tools for accountability assessment, such
as comparison to peer institutions, benchmarking, and targets
and indicators. There is a growing appreciation on campus
for results from focus groups, satisfaction surveys, retention/graduation
data, and surveys of graduates - such information has become
more widely available and is coming to be requested more often.
At this stage in our development, however, many of these tools
are used principally to respond to external demands for accountability
or mandated accreditation reviews rather than being used widely
on campus to help the institution assess its progress toward
its goals.
Our ability to provide data and studies to meet evaluation,
planning, and management needs rests largely with the Office
of Institutional Research (OIR). A current emphasis for the
OIR is to make more and better data available for campus planning
and evaluation, and a longer-range goal is to support departments
and others in conducting surveys and developing outcomes assessment
capabilities. This office now produces not only the customary
tools used in overview and planning such as enrollment and
admissions-data summaries but also makes available a growing
list of more specialized studies about students and instruction,
including instructional resources, instructional capacities
and quantities (e.g., student credit hour [SCH] productivity
in departments or for service activities), grading practices,
and student academic performance. The Office also maintains
data on the institutions identified as comparative peer institutions
for the campus (see list in Standard Nine, p. 90). The Office
worked with Admissions in 1998 to help develop predictive
validity studies in admissions. An annual compilation of on-campus
data is required for use in program reviews, especially the
academic program review (AQAD) process.
Other units also do specialized studies. For example, Chancellor
Cressy contracted for a special projection study of admissions
trends in the region, with our Center for Policy Analysis.
Financial Aid now produces a full annual statistical report
submitted to the UMass President for a system-wide compilation.
Many on-campus units conduct specific surveys - some annually,
like the survey of graduates produced by the Office of Career
Services, or the Alumni Association, with the assistance of
the Office of Institutional Research.
Participation of Faculty Through Governance Units and
in Departmental Activities
The Faculty Senate and, where appropriate, the leadership
of the faculty union participate in campus decision making,
and as such are involved in activities in assessment and planning.
There is a growing recognition in these groups of the importance
of evaluation and assessment for making decisions. For example,
the General Education Committee is charged to evaluate the
successes of the current program and to make necessary adjustments.
Academic policy and procedure are reviewed by the Faculty
Senate's Student/Faculty Academic Affairs Committee, which
bases some decisions on evaluation of previous policies; for
example, this year that committee has worked with the Offices
of the Registrar and Institutional Research to review detailed
data on our grading policies and our transfer credit policies
as shown in analyses of student cases.
Our faculty contract and academic procedures and policies
require a range of evaluative activities. Faculty performance
is indicated in a series of personnel evaluations: annual
evaluations of each faculty member, and then evaluations at
key stages in an advancing career (contract renewal before
tenure, promotion, and tenure). A recently adopted procedure,
Periodic Multi-Year Review, provides for post-tenure review
of all faculty on a seven-year cycle.
Assessment of Outcomes
We are at a formative stage in our approach to assessing
individual student learning outcomes with little attention
paid to qualitative and explicit learning objectives. The
policies for our new General Education curriculum require
both evaluation and assessment, although the program is new
and not fully implemented, so progress is not yet measurable.
However, assessment tools are in place for Computer and Information
Literacy, Tier 1, and planning groups have begun work in the
other areas. To a greater or lesser degree, programs that
experience external accreditation reviews assess student outcomes,
though these activities tend to be sporadic or afterthoughts
rather than built into the structure of academic experiences
of students. One exception to that statement involves a new
special curriculum within the Engineering College, called
the IMPULSE Program, a grant-supported effort in multi-disciplinary
coordinated instruction for freshman-year engineering students
begun in 1998-99. These students take courses in mathematics,
science, English, and engineering in common; instruction is
coordinated and often team-taught, and occurs in a special
classroom/laboratory facility. The program is intended to
become a model for other assessment efforts. Also, the Assistant
Chancellor for Enrollment Management is developing measures
to evaluate students' attitudes and expectations upon entering
college (based on the Noel-Levitz College Student Inventory)
and is working to apply the findings to assist them in their
subsequent studies. He has also piloted a program to assist
faculty in communicating with freshman students about their
academic performance
UMass Dartmouth has undergone ten years of dramatic change.
Our mission has evolved rapidly, while external forces, including
the new UMass system and the Massachusetts State Board of
Higher Education, have added further demands. In addition
to having an administrative climate inimical to long-term
planning and institutional process, we have been too preoccupied
with responding to budgetary constraints, external requirements,
and rapid change to perform thorough and systematic planning
and evaluation activities. Even so, stimulated by our recent
history of change, we have worked energetically over the last
several years on three key initiatives that show promise of
stable planning and evaluation in the near future: a formal
process of academic review, a systematic budget process linked
to planning, and the development of systematic strategic planning.
Academic Program Review
The campus had been accustomed to doing academic reviews
through the 1980s, although the recent history is one of special-purpose
review activities in a context of budget pressure and mandates
for change. There has been a tendency for cynicism on the
part of many, thinking that such reviews come and go but may
have relatively little effect on the day-to-day business of
departments. Such an attitude is beginning to change, partly
because some of the findings of the Year 2000 review have
been implemented and resource reallocations have occurred.
Many on campus expect that the results of an academic program
review should lead directly to changes in resource allocations.
Faculty often complained that the program reviews conducted
in the 1980s did not bring with them a flow of resources to
meet identified needs, although that was one of the stated
goals of the exercise. Similarly, the reallocation promises
of "Year 2000" did not seem to bring as large increases
in resources as were called for to many departments and programs
designated to receive additional resources.
Our current system of program review, AQAD, is still too
new to evaluate. AQAD reviews up to this academic year encompass
only programs for which external accreditation processes exist,
and will therefore not test the entire process. It will not
be until the 2000-2001 academic year that other programs will
experience the AQAD review process, resulting, eventually,
in Action Plans for all departments.
Subject-Area Accreditation
When we joined the University of Massachusetts, one stated
goal was to become accredited in all program areas for which
a nation-wide accrediting agency exists. (See Standard Four,
p. 25, for an inventory of currently-accredited programs.)
That, among other considerations, has re-invigorated a now
twenty-year-long goal to achieve AACSB accreditation of the
Business programs. We confidently expect to receive this accreditation.
There are two other academic areas in which, arguably, we
might pursue accreditation: music and teacher preparation.
Both programs are relatively small, however, and, being in
a process of rapid change in both structure and curriculum,
are not sufficiently stable to seek accreditation at this
time.
Subject accreditation reviews are important campus activities
in evaluation, and they play key roles in planning. In fact,
the evolving criteria for the various subject accreditation
processes have tended to drive the campus agenda on new needs
for assessment, evaluation, and planning. Departments and
colleges that are active in this process tend to be more positive
about systematic evaluation and planning and more accustomed
to considering mission and priorities in making resource decisions.
Furthermore, they are more aware of the importance of outcomes
assessment and are in the forefront in encouraging the rest
of the campus to develop in this area.
Support for a Culture and Practice of Evaluation
Data resources have improved significantly over the past
ten years. Through its Office of Institutional Research, the
institution has achieved the goal of its 1990 self-study to
"establish a locus of responsibility for institutional
research" (p. 12), and it has made real progress toward
"including management information systems" in this
development. This unit is located within the Division of Academic
Affairs, where it maintains close contact with academic and
instructional issues. Fiscal and management issues must also
increasingly be encompassed in today's institutional research
activities, however, and we believe that our current program
is beginning to accomplish this through inter-divisional dialogue.
Emerging campus needs for data, analysis, and projections
are prominent in a number of areas: 1) studies of external
"market" forces and maintaining more systematic
and thorough enrollment projections; 2) a systematic database
of information (enrollment, personnel, fiscal, and resource
indicators) for use in guiding short-range initiatives and
fiscal and academic strategic planning; 3) a broader range
of activities in program evaluation and long-range planning;
and 4) learning outcomes assessment, including predictive
and validity studies.
In the next decade, separate units like the Colleges and
the Divisions of Student Affairs and Fiscal Affairs will continue
to expand activities in evaluation and planning. By creating
an independent office, we have made considerable progress
compared to the decentralized approach to institutional reporting
and analysis of just a decade before. Yet the staff and budget
of the Office of Institutional Research are small, and the
work demands are increasing in both quantity and complexity.
Budget Planning Process
During most of this decade, annual budget allocations have
been made without sufficient analysis of resources that will
be available. Similarly, the practice has been to allocate
all resources rather than to hold some in reserve. In the
case of special fee accounts, the practice has been to budget
the total amount available instead of allocating for specific
programmatic needs.
On September 29, in her first address to the university community,
Interim Chancellor MacCormack outlined a vastly improved budgeting
system, with budget planning and allocations geared closely
to established goals and priorities and responsibility and
accountability for spending and fiscal management decentralized
to the unit level.
Mission and Goals in the Various Units
of the Campus
Considerable discussion of short-range and long-range goals
occurs at higher levels in the administration. Our former
Chancellor in particular was very active in leading the institution
in change. Using an entrepreneurial and outward-directed style,
however, he tended not to pause to document plans and strategies.
Top administrators participated in frequent sessions with
the Chancellor and Provost, in which they gave advice and
discussed methodologies; in these meetings they were then
charged to implement the evolving plans and strategies articulated.
This process was dynamic and led to rapid institutional change
in many areas. Yet in this process decisions about strategic
directions and initiatives were not documented, and some decisions
were subject to change, at least in detail, without broad
recognition that a change had occurred. Decisions with long-range
implications tended to occur in interactions between the University
of Massachusetts leadership and the campus's top administrators,
on the one hand, and, on campus, between those top administrators
and a relatively limited group of faculty leaders. The decisions
were relatively invisible to the lower levels of faculty,
students, and staff. Although many important mid-level decisions
have been made with good consultation, this was often accomplished
through ad hoc, special committees rather than institutionalized
through regular governance procedures.
Thus, documenting and holding to long-range and strategic
planning decisions has been problematic. We still need to
work to bridge real gaps in process and procedure. Until a
systematic process is implemented, which relates resource
allocations to needs and goals, the institution will continue
to experience such gaps.
Participation of Faculty Through Governance Units and
in Departmental Activities
We have a strong tradition of faculty governance. There is
systematic faculty participation in areas customarily the
province of faculty, like academic policies and faculty evaluation.
Furthermore, faculty participate, through standing committees,
in many decision-making processes affecting the life and future
of the institution. However, many faculty believe that they
have had relatively little involvement in key decisions about
longer-range campus directions. Chancellor Cressy was often
"ahead of the rest of the campus" in knowing where
the institution was going. In spite of a healthy amount of
departmental participation in the Year 2000 reviews, campus-wide
activities in planning have tended to be mandated from above
and managed "from the top down."
Assessment of Institutional Effectiveness; Outcomes
Assessment
The AQAD academic program review process seeks to incorporate
assessment of learning outcomes in each of its required categories.
This and other forces will combine to keep our focus on the
task. In several of our programs (e.g., in Nursing and Engineering),
assessment of learning outcomes is already well developed
in areas of professional competency.
Although recent discussions and activities in evaluation
have brought prominence to the need for a comprehensive assessment
program, many faculty are skeptical. They worry that an assessment
program will reduce their individual control of their courses
or activities in advising students - that is, that it will
reduce traditional academic freedom. Similarly, they suspect
that assessment of their students' learning will play a role
in evaluation of their teaching performance, or that statistical
analyses and arbitrary point ratings will become the basis
for evaluation.
In 1998, a campus-wide outcomes assessment committee was
appointed, chaired by the Dean of the College of Arts and
Sciences. This committee was modeled in part on an assessment
task force created the year before within the College of Arts
and Sciences. These committees have surveyed campus units
for information about assessment activities and are exploring
models and structures. In fall 1998, a group of administrators
and faculty leaders attended a NEASC regional workshop on
Outcomes Assessment.
In the offices and programs that support students and manage
the university's business, the challenge of assessing outcomes
must also be met. Their evaluation efforts have tended to
focus more on input or process criteria than on achievement
of identified outcomes.
Projection
Institutional Planning and Effectiveness
The new Provost, in cooperation with the Chancellor, has
established the procedures for a comprehensive planning process
for the university. One result of this activity is the formation
of a planning committee consisting of twenty-eight individuals
who will provide broad campus representation for planning
activities. The Chancellor has set a goal for the development
and completion of a university strategic plan by April 2000,
and unit plans in the next year. These plans will establish
annual, biennial, and five-year strategic goals along with
concrete steps for implementation in an ongoing process of
assessment and revision of goals.
A key issue will be to form a process for guiding and coordinating
outcomes assessment efforts, either through the Planning Committee
or a separate assessment process, including annual assessment
of the planning process itself. Outcomes assessment programs
will develop rapidly between 2001 and 2003. A start was made
in fall 1999, in developing assessment for our general education
curriculum. From this beginning must also evolve a structure
and practice to assess achievement of outcomes in the academic
programs of the campus.
Academic Program Review and Accreditation
The key to progress in the area of academic program review
will be implementation of the system now created, which is
based in the AQAD process. Beginning in 2001, departments
not accredited by outside agencies will begin to cycle into
the five-year review schedule. Existing subject-area accreditation
reviews, aligned with the AQAD process, will similarly be
integrated into university planning.
The Provost's Office is charged with administering the program
in close association with the Office of Institutional Research.
To ensure appropriate participatory oversight, the Planning
Committee will be charged to review the process annually and
recommend changes to the Provost. We will pay special attention
to integrating assessments of institutional effectiveness
and learning outcomes in the academic program review process.
We project achievement of AACSB accreditation for our Business
programs in 2001. We will pursue subject-area accreditation
in other programs, such as music and teacher preparation,
as soon as the structure and curricula of those programs become
stable and well established.
Improving Support for a Culture and Practice of Evaluation.
The present Office of Institutional Research will not only
provide data but also support a broader range of evaluation
and assessment activities. Its philosophy will be to support
the departments and divisions of the university in their evaluation
and planning efforts, by encouraging systematic processes,
providing good and consistent data, helping with special studies
and surveys, and providing innovative models and training
in their use--but not to do the activities for them. The model
is for campus units to learn about progressive methodologies
to assess institutional effectiveness and receive assistance
in implementing them.
Implementing a Budget Planning Process
The new budget planning process, piloted in a truncated form
in FY 2000, will be used, expanded, and strengthened in the
next few years. The task most crucial to the success of the
budget process is to build and maintain the institution's
capacity for systematic planning. The new administration intends
to base budgets for FY 2001 and beyond on the results of the
strategic-planning initiative.
Essential relationships will also be fostered between the
academic program review process (AQAD) and the budget allocation
process. Program reviews produce Action Plans in each department;
insofar as these have resource implications, they must be
addressed in the budget process.
A central objective of the Chancellor's new leadership
team is to empower those in positions of leadership and responsibility
to establish local control and greater accountability in resource
management.
Formulating and Using Mission and Goals in the Various
Units of the Campus
The key documents stating our mission and purposes will be
revised or created, circulated widely, and brought into significant
use, beginning in AY 2000-2001. We will strengthen our traditions
of faculty involvement in campus governance and more formally
incorporate the recommendations and assessments of standing
committees in the deliberations of the planning committee.
The planning process will also help guide the development
of capital projects. Results of these planning activities
will be circulated widely.
Home
Page | Institutional
Characteristics | Preface
| Overview
| Mission and Purpose | Planning
and Evaluation | Organization
and Governance | Programs and
Instruction | Faculty | Student
Services | Library and Information
Resources | Physical Resources
| Financial Resources | Public
Disclosure | Integrity
|
