|
Western Association of Schools & Colleges
Albert K. Karnig Dear President Karnig: At its meeting on February 19-20, 2004, the Commission considered reports prepared by the Preparatory Review and Educational Effectiveness Review teams that visited California State University, San Bernardino on March 5-7, 2003, and on October 15-17, 2003. The Commission also had access to the University's institutional presentation for the two reviews. Your participation in the deliberation of the Commission Panel with Jerrold E. Pritchard, Associate Provost, Academic Programs, was appreciated and deepened the Commission's understanding of the University. This accreditation cycle for California State University, San Bernardino was conducted during the transition to the 2001 Handbook for Accreditation. The Institutional Proposal was reviewed and accepted by staff, and the Educational Effectiveness Review followed the Preparatory Review by only one semester. The University's proposal recognized the need to respond to previous Commission actions and advanced three themes fox special consideration: * Becoming a Teaching and Learning Community In the Preparatory Review presentation, these themes were skillfully woven into an interpretative essay organized by Commission Standards. The Education Effectiveness presentation, the themes were organized into case studies that chronicled initiatives through which the University has begun to address these goals. The overall effect is comprehensive and analytical. The team was particularly impressed by the University's process of gathering anti synthesizing the data contained in these reports and in the portfolio which supports them. It was well-organized and inclusive. California State University, San Bernardino, is clearly a dynamic institution. The campus is growing dramatically in the number of students, staff, and programs, as well as funding and facilities. It is responding boldly to the demographic shifts in its region. The team found a plethora of initiatives and a "culture of evidence" that have been nurtured to evaluate them. This energy and a willingness to review results pervade the academic, cocurricular, and administrative sectors of the University. For example, surveys indicate that a majority of academic units not only assess programs, but also circulate assessment data to facilitate faculty discussion. In addition, program review has been firmly established as part of the campus culture. The University consistently employs data on use, satisfaction, and retention in its review of academic support and student services. Finally, the campus has been rated one of the region's best places to work, in part because of its attention to the cycle of training, assessment, and feedback. Some of the initiatives begun by the University appear to have
special promise, even if their short life makes full evaluation
difficult at this time. Fox example, the Learning Research Institute
has the potential to focus faculty attention on learning as
a subject for scholarly pursuit. The program, in consort with
the University's Teaching Resource Center, Assessment Committee,
and student assistance programs, is poised to become a rising
star on the campus and possibly beyond. Further it should aid
the University as it works to The Commission shared the team's positive impression of the
University's development. The specific concerns of earlier teams
about governance, communication, planning, grievances, and assessment
have all been satisfactorily addressed. While many initiatives
throughout the University are recent, they appear to have been
established with clear goals in Strategic Planning. The team identified strategic planning in its list of recommendations at the end of both the Preparatory and the Educational Effectiveness Reports. The concern is different in each case. First, the team noted that the link between the strategic plan and budget allocation needs to be strengthened, in particular because discretionary funding may be reduced in the near future. Therefore, the team suggests that a more aggressive reallocation process be considered to prepare the institution fox periods when funding grows at a slower pace. Given current state budget concerns, this issue requires immediate attention. Second, the team suggests that CSU San Bernardino sharpen its institutional vision to include a clarified direction for the upcoming decade. This suggestion is rooted in the team's observation that there needs to be clearer priorities assigned to programs. The team notes, in this regard, the extensive list of learning communities, the several outreach activities, and the growing number of international initiatives, the goals of which are not systematically interrelated or integrated into institutional goals. The team agreed with the institution's self report that the University has not yet digested the impact of many of its new programs on its general institutional directions. This recommendation confirms the assessment of the University's Long-range Planning Council in 2002, which praised the overall number, range, and kind of new initiatives but counseled prioritization and a better measurement of results. It appears that although these new initiatives are regularly
evaluated, the criteria are not Growth as a Learning Organization. The team noticed a number of places where University commitments had been not fully implemented. While praising the progress that has been made, the team echo earlier reviews in suggesting that diversity and student advisement continue to require special attention. In both these cases, the team found that the University does not yet have the mechanisms in place to fulfill its promises completely. While the University as a whole has clearly adopted a "culture of evidence" and a procedure for assessing contributions to student learning, there are units and programs that still lag behind. In particular, critical areas such as general education, interdisciplinary programs, distributed learning, and outreach initiatives have yet to make the gathering and analysis of student learning data routine. As the University continues to grow and cultivate new programs, it should take care to meet its obligations in regard to all programs. Where commitments have not been met, the Commission anticipates that special attention will be given to them and impediments will be overcome. Indeed, this is the core of what a learning organization does. It continually identifies problems and sets strategies to overcome them. Therefore, institutions are expected to take steps to ensure that reports and other evaluative materials that regularly identify areas of concern to be acted upon at unit levels and above to assure compliance. The Commission acted to: Enclosed is a memorandum providing guidance on the format and content of a Progress Report. 3. Schedule the Proposal for the two-stage comprehensive review to be due October 15, 2010. Schedule the Capacity and Preparatory Review for spring 2013 and the Education Effectiveness review for spring 2014. In taking this action to reaffirm accreditation, the Commission confirms that the institution has satisfactorily addressed the Core Commitments to Institutional Capacity and Educational Effectiveness and that it has successfully completed the multistage review conducted under the Standards of Accreditation. Between this action and the time of the next review, the institution is expected to continue its progress and will be held accountable as expectations of institutional performance, especially with respect to Educational Effectiveness and student learning, further develop under the application of the Standards of Accreditation. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments about this letter and the action of the Commission. Sincerely, Ralph A. Wolff Cc:
|
||
Acrobat Adobe Reader  |
California State University, San Bernardino 5500 University Parkway San Bernardino CA 92407-2318 Tel. 909-537-5000 |
||