Specific Goals and Objectives

Draft Self-Study Design - June 24, 2008

D R A F T

Institutional Self-Study Design

Submitted to:

Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools

September 1, 2008

Submitted by:

University at Albany

StateUniversity of New York

Draft Self-Study Design - June 24, 2008

Table of Contents

Nature and Scope of Self-Study......

Specific Goals and Objectives......

Organizational Structure of the Self-Study Team......

Subcommittee Charges and Issues to Address......

Integration and Formalization of Outcomes Assessment......

Inventory of Support Documents......

Timeline......

Editorial Style and Format of Subcommittee Reports......

Format of the Self-Study Report......

Profile of the External Evaluation Team......

Appendix A......

Draft Self-Study Design - June 24, 2008

Nature and Scope of Self-Study

The University at Albany has evolved rapidly, transforming itself from a distinguished college for teachers, founded in 1844, into a twenty-first century high-quality research university with an internationally recognized and highly productive faculty, an accomplished student body, and nationally recognized academic programs. Its traditional missions of undergraduate and graduate teaching, research, and service are distinctively integrated to produce an intellectual and programmatic synergy that defines the University. Today, the University at Albany is distinguished by excellence within distinctive disciplines and professions and by extensive scholarship and teaching across disciplines, including many combined accelerated degree options that meld knowledge and application.

The University’s stature and achievements have greatly accelerated over the self-study period (2001 – present) through increased capital investment, upgrades to its more recent Division I athletics program, and increased outreach and advancement efforts. The Middle States re-accreditation process is therefore very much welcomed as a powerful opportunity to demonstrate the evidence behind the University at Albany’s continuing ascent to the upper echelons of American higher education.

Preparation for the University at Albany’s Self-Study process began in early 2007 when then Officer-in-Charge and Provost and Executive Vice President Susan V. Herbst asked Dr. Sue Faerman, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and Dr. Bruce Szelest, Assistant Vice President for Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness to attend the November 2007 MSCHE Self-Study Institute. By November 2007, Dr. Herbst left UAlbany, and interim President George Philip agreed with the recommendation of Drs. Faerman and Szelest, developed in consultation with our Middle States’ liaison, Dr. Luis Pedraja, that despite a prolonged period of transition in senior campus leadership, the Self-Study process could nonetheless be a valuable vehicle to organize the campus to take stock of its strengths and areas for improvement in preparation for the eventual installment of its next president and leadership team. Planning and preparation work began soon thereafter, and in May 2008, interim President Philip issued a campus call for university community members to volunteer to participate on one of the various subcommittees that would help to draft the initial Self-Study document.

Interim President Philip also agreed with recommendations that a comprehensive Self-Study design would best serve the university’s interests at this time. The comprehensive model, as stated in the MSCHE Self-Study, creates a useful process and report that “enables an institution to appraise every aspect of its programs and services, governing and supporting structures, resources, and educational outcomes in relation to the institution’s mission and goals.” This approach will be particularly useful in informing the next president about the many aspects of the complex organization that is the University at Albany. In order to maximize the efficiency of the working groups, given our historical institutional culture and organizational relationships between faculty and the administration, some accreditation standards were grouped together in the formal self-study design, resulting in nine working subcommittees in all.

The university’s last accreditation occurred in 2000, six years prior to the publication of the current MSCHE Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education, which delineates the newly adopted accreditation standards upon which the University at Albany will be judged. That said, the university was cognizant of anticipated changes in accreditation standards and new emphases on assessment processes that emerged in the 2002 edition of Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education, as well as the added emphasis that Middle States now places on the use of assessment results to inform decision making across the institution, as well as in evaluating student learning objectives. The university developed an institutional assessment plan prior to its 2005 Periodic Review Report (PRR) to MSCHE, began assessment of learning outcomes in both the major and in its General Education program in the early 2000s, and incorporated assessment processes across administrative and academic units in the compact planning process instituted by President Kermit Hall in the 2005-06 academic year. UAlbany has been without a permanent president since President Hall’s untimely death in August 2006, which is another reason to inventory and assess the many aspects of UAlbany in preparation for the planning processes and action agenda of the next president. A comprehensive model is also seen as eminently adaptable, should a new president be chosen sooner rather than later, and can be modified to focus on particular areas of emphasis should the eventual new president deem that approach desirable.

Specific Goals and Objectives

Over the past decade the University at Albanyhas experienced the vicissitudes of state financial support and frequent transitions in the upper levels of its administration. Current interim President Philip, in consultation with the University Council and the University Senate, looks upon the Middle States’ self-study process as a timely opportunity to to review thoroughly the entire university (all units), to examine goals, and how we continually assess progress toward them. Examining our current effectiveness across all aspects of the university, both administrative and academic, will be immensely useful to informing the agenda and planning needs of the next president. It has been ten years since the development of the last formal strategic plan,and the university is now under the direction of its fifth chief executive over this time span, so we anticipate that the next president will wish to initiate a comprehensive strategic planning process. A primary objective of this self-study is to inform that process. While the execution of the university’s self-study will certainly identify areas of weakness, it isasimportant that it be viewed by university leadership as an opportunity to identify areas of resilience and fortitude. The university’s goal is to produce a comprehensive and forthright reflection on its current state. We fully expect that the resulting recommendations will strengthen the unity of the community, giving it greater insight and renewed purpose for carrying out its mission in the decades ahead.

Specific Goals and Objectives of the Self-Study

Examine and assess the state of the institution’s current mission, goals, policies, procedures, structures, educational and related offerings, research, teaching, assessment mechanisms, and resources.
Empower a broad university constituency to participate in all aspects of the self-study process to ensure the maximum representation of various constituencies within the university and ownership of the process, its contents, and recommendations.
Identify the institution’s strengths and weaknesses relative to each of the accreditation standards, in light of the university’s mission and goals.
Make specific recommendations for improvement, particularly in assessment, planning, and resource allocation processes.

The nine subcommittees and steering committee will be asked to complete the following activities to accomplish these goals and objectives:

Review their general charges, the Middle States’ standards of accreditation, and their respective charge questions.
Further revise, expand, and refine their respective charge questions through the course of their examination, and with input from various facets of the university community.
Inventory and utilize major reports and planning documents and information generated within each vice presidential area and the schools and college to support analyses and conclusions.
Gather additional data and information, as needed, to address issues of interest.
Conduct interviews, focus groups, or surveys, as needed to support the information needs of the self-study process.
Communicate to and be responsive to the broader university community in addressing issues of import throughout the self-study process, and to culminate in a final self-study document built through consensus and shared understanding.

Organizational Structure of the Self-Study Team

The University at Albany Middle States self-study effort is led by co-chairs Dr. Sue F. Faerman, Distinguished Teaching Professor and Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, and Dr. Steven F. Messner, Distinguished Teaching Professor. Interim President Philip appointed Drs. Faerman and Messner, in consultation with the University Senate, which also assisted by nominating Steering Committee chairs and members. Both Drs. Faerman and Messner are past-chairs of the UAlbany University Senate, and Dr. Faerman was the chair of the university’s 2000 Middle States self-study steering committee. Joining Drs. Faerman and Messner on the self-study Steering Committee are the chairs of the nine subcommittees that are charged with examining UAlbany’s compliance with the Middle States standards of accreditation; Dr. Reed Hoyt, Associate Professor of Music and the immediate past-chair of the University Senate; Glenn Pichardo, president of the Graduate Student Organization; and Daniel Truchan, Student Association president.Final selection of subcommittee chairs was made by Drs. Faerman and Messner, with considered advice from the University Senate. Most Steering Committee chairs were chosen from among those who answered interim President Philip’s call for participation. However, in some cases, individuals were directly solicited in order to ensure an appropriate balance among faculty and staff on the Steering Committee. As a result, one chair was actively solicited based on his leadership experience and reputation within the program review committee of the Council on Academic Assessment, and two additional subcommittee chairs were selected from nominations of senior faculty put forth by the Governance Council. Dr. Bruce Szelest, Assistant Vice President for Institutional Research, Planning and Effectiveness, provides staff support to the steering committee and leads efforts to supply the subcommittees with the data and information needed to inform their work. Additional staff support is provided by Ms. Lana Neveu, Assistant to the President, and Ms. Sally Mills, Secretary to the Dean, School of Business. Also joining the support staff to the self-study effort is ______, a graduate assistant from the Department of Educational Administration and Policy Studies’ doctoral program, who will be solely dedicated to the self-study effort.

The Steering Committee will coordinate the work of the nine subcommittees, and provide appropriate guidance so that the subcommittees stay true to the overarching goal of basing all evaluations, policy assertions, and recommendations on data and observable evidence. Due to the related nature of several standards of accreditation, particularly within the University at Albany context, it was proposed to and affirmed by the Steering Committee that the first subcommittee address Middle States standards addressing mission and goals, as well as standards addressing planning, resource allocation, and institutional renewal. The third subcommittee is asked to address leadership and governance, as well as the administration, which also includes an assessment of library and information technology services, as they are critical elements thereof. In order to forge a comprehensive discussion of UAlbany’s assessment processes and their use at both the institutional level and across academic and administrative units, the fourth subcommittee is asked to address standards relating to institutional assessmentand the assessment of student learning. One additional subcommittee is asked to address multiple accreditation standards - the eighth subcommittee is chargedwith addressing Middle States standards related to the university’s educational offerings, the curricula, and also those relating to general education, as general education at UAlbany is intricately related and complementary to undergraduate programmatic offerings.

Because the Middle States’ standard of integrity manifests itself throughout the other thirteen standards, the integrity standard is integrated within each of the other content areas. To ensure content coverage, each of the eighteen fundamental elements of integrity outlined in the Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education is assigned to the subcommittee to which it is most closely aligned to stimulate the subcommittee to think about and report on the totality of the activities it is concerned with and the degree to which the university demonstrates adherence to ethical standards and its own stated policies, providing support for academic and intellectual freedom. As such, the standards of accreditation as related to integrity are not merely checklists to be covered, but rather themes of ethical and professional conduct than can be assessed in terms of the degree to which the university’s myriad actions to execute its mission mirror its stated policies.

To summarize, the nine subcommittees that are asked toaddress substantive issuesthat speak tothe Middle States fourteen standardsofexcellence are:

Mission and Goals - Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal
Institutional Resources
Leadership and Governance - Administration (including Library and ITS)
Institutional Assessment and Assessment of Student Learning
Student Admissions and Retention
Student Support Services
Faculty
Educational Offerings - General Education
Related Educational Offerings

In April 2008interim President Philipissued a callefor members of the university community to participate in the Middle States self-study process. Eighty-seven faculty and staff members answered interim President Philip’s invitation to participate, and the vast majority of volunteers was assigned to their first-choice subcommittee. Each subcommittee will be provided with a charge and a guiding set of charge questions, as detailed below,which they will further refine based on additional input from the university community.They will also be asked to identify their methodology for addressing the charge questions, as well as generate a list of required resources, both existing and new, needed to answer the charge questions. The committees will meet regularly to draft their reports and provide monthly updates to the Steering Committee.. The Steering Committee, through Dr. Szelest, will coordinate efforts to obtain additional information, including any additional surveys of university faculty, staff, or students.

The Steering Committee has overall responsibility for reviewing and responding to the various components of the subcommittees’ reports, including purpose, charge, methodologies and recommendations. It will compile the draft subcommittee reports into a comprehensive university-wide draft self-study. The Steering Committee also serves as a liaison to the university community, routinely informing it about the progress being made and ensuring that there is appropriate input from all constituencies. The Steering Committee will use a variety of means of communication to ensure community ownership of the self-study process, content, and resulting recommendations.

Subcommittee Charges and Issues to Address

Subcommittee 1 - Mission and Goals - Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal

Fundamental charge: This subcommittee is asked to comprehensively review UAlbany’s compliance with the first two Middle Standards: Mission and Goals; and Planning, Resource Allocation, and Renewal. The work of this subcommittee is particularly important in documenting how the University at Albany has effectively functioned and been guided by its core mission and goals during the self-study time-frame (2001 through 2010),during which it experienced numerous transitions in presidential and other senior campus leadership positions, and varied approaches to planning and resource allocation. As important, this subcommittee is asked to outline the challenges that UAlbany faces in the current higher education environment, both nationally, and particularly within New YorkState, given its leadership situation, and to recommend steps and processes that will help ensure the future success of the institution when stable campus leadership eventually assumes the helm.

Charge questions:

Are the university’s mission and goals clearly defined?
Are goals consistent with mission, and do they focus on student learning, other outcomes, and institutional improvement?
Do UAlbany’s mission and goals include support of scholarly and creative activity, at levels and of the kinds appropriate to UAlbany’s historical standing as a research university?
Were the institutional goals and mission developed through collaborative participation by the university community and faculty governance, and have they been periodically evaluated and formally approved?
Are UAlbany’s mission and goals publicized and widely known by the university community?
To what degree does the University’s mission guide faculty, administration, staff and governing bodies in making decisions related to planning, resource allocation, program and curricular development, and the definition of program outcomes?
To what extent has the somewhat “dated” nature of UAlbany’s last strategic plan affected (positively and negatively) planning, resource allocation, and program and curricular development across the various levels of the university?
To what extent do UAlbany’s mission and goals relate to external as well as internal contexts and constituencies?
Are the mission and goals operable at different levels within UAlbany, and how are they applied to different situations? How do academic and administrative units plan, allocate resources, and renew themselves?
How does UAlbany encourage and support academic and administrative units to reflect on their missions, goals, and to change, improve, and renew their programs and services?
How has the achievement of UAlbany’s mission and specific goals been assessed since the last self-study?
What different types of planning are utilized at UAlbany (e.g., enrollment, financial, workforce diversity, facilities, academic planning and program review, etc.)?

Issues to keep in mind and weave into discussions