1 / 82

WASC Update

WASC Update. July 13, 2010. Structure of this Presentation. WASC Standards WASC Specific Concerns Closing the loop – specifically with the five (5) major concerns/ clustering of CFRs How everyone can continue to help. Academic Senate Requests.

mura
Télécharger la présentation

WASC Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WASC Update July 13, 2010

  2. Structure of this Presentation • WASC Standards • WASC Specific Concerns • Closing the loop – specifically with the five (5) major concerns/ clustering of CFRs • How everyone can continue to help

  3. Academic Senate Requests The Academic Senate Legislative Council held an emergency meeting on June 15 to discuss the letter received from WASC, dated May 13, 2010 and recently made fully available to the campus community. The Council, on behalf of the faculty, is deeply concerned about a number of issues cited in the letter. In light of these concerns, and in the interest of transparency, the Academic Senate Legislative Council is asking for your written response on the following items no later than July13, 2010: 1. WASC has repeatedly told us that the standard which we will be held to is “substantial compliance” with all of the WASC standards. The Legislative Council is requesting a comprehensive list of evidence to date of CDU’s compliance with WASC standards, mapped to the WASC standards, with any gaps identified, and preliminary plans, timelines, and accountabilities to fill those gaps.   2. The Legislative Council would like a complete written response to several of the items in the WASC letter of May 13, 2010. Why is each of these points still a concern for WASC? How has each of these points been addressed so far and what are the plans, timelines, and accountabilities for future actions related to each point? How does the university I intend to ensure that these points are no longer concerns in the future? The points for response are attached. The Academic Senate Legislative Council thanks you for your attention to this matter and we look forward to your timely response.

  4. President’s Response I thank the Academic Senate Legislative Council for their suggestions. As you know the WASC process is a faculty driven process. I think to best maintain the high level of input and transparency without creating new layers that may be confusing I would recommend the Council’s suggestions be integrated into the work of the existing WASC working committees. Fortunately, the present structure is designed to facilitate direct communication to faculty through their Academic Senate representatives, in addition to my campus presentations.I believe all of the questions posed by the Council are part of the present campus-wide approach to achieve substantial compliance with WASC. I think CDU is well positioned to ensure they are all fully addressed and I thank the leadership of the Academic Senate Legislative Council in advance for their willingness to step up and increase their level of participation to making sure CDU is successful.

  5. WASC Standards at a Glance Standard I: Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives Institutional Purposes 1.1 Formally approved, appropriate statements of purpose; define values and character • 1.2 Clear objectives; indicators of achievement at institutional, program and course level; system to measure student achievement; public data on achievement. • 1.3 High performance, responsibility, accountability of leadership system Integrity • 1.4 Academic freedom 1.5 Diversity: policies, programs and practices 1.6 Education as purpose; autonomy • 1.7 Truthful representation to students/public; timely completion; fair and equitable policies • 1.8 Operational integrity; sound business practices; timely and fair complaint handling; evaluation of performance. • 1.9 Honest, open communication with WASC; inform WASC of material matters; follow WASC policies

  6. WASC Standards at a Glance Standard II: Achieving Educational Objectives through Core Functions Teaching and Learning 2.1 Programs appropriate in content, standards, level; sufficient qualified faculty • 2.2 Clearly defined degrees re admission and level of achievement for graduation • Undergraduate degree requirements • Graduate degree requirements • 2.3 SLOs and expectations for student learning at all levels; reflected in policies, advising, information resources, etc. • 2.4 Faculty responsibility for attainment of expectations for student learning • 2.5 Students involved in learning and challenged; feedback provided • 2.6 Graduates achieve stated levels of attainment; SLOs embedded in faculty standards for assessing student work • 2.7 Systematic program review includes SLOs, retention/graduation, external evidence Scholarship and Creative Activity • 2.8 Scholarship, creativity, curricular and instructional innovation valued and supported 2.9 Linkage among scholarship, teaching, student learning and service Support for Student Learning 2.10 Collection and analysis of disaggregated student data; achievement, satisfaction and climate tracked; student needs identified and supported • 2.11 Co-curricular programs assessed 2.12 Timely, useful information and advising 2.13 Appropriate student services 2.14 Information to and treatment of transfer students (if applicable)

  7. WASC Standards at a Glance Standard III: Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure Sustainability Faculty and Staff • 3.1 Sufficient qualified personnel for operations and academics • 3.2 Sufficient qualified and diverse faculty • 3.3 Faculty policies, practices, and evaluation • 3.4 Faculty and staff development Fiscal, Physical, and Information Resources • 3.5 Financial stability, clean audits, sufficient resources; realistic plans if deficits; budgeting, enrollment and diversified revenue 3.6 Sufficient information resources/library, aligned and adequate • 3.7 Information technology coordinated and supported Organizational Structures and Decision-Making Processes • 3.8 Clear, consistent decision-making structures and processes; priority on academics • 3.9 Independent governing board with proper oversight; CEO hiring and evaluation • 3.10 Full-time CEO; CFO; sufficient administrators and staff • 3.11 Effective academic leadership by faculty

  8. WASC Standards at a Glance Standard IV: Creating an Organization Committed to Learning and Improvement Strategic Thinking and Planning • 4.1 Reflection/planning with constituents; strategic with priorities and future direction; aligned with purposes; plan monitored and revised • 4.2 Plans align academic, personnel, fiscal, physical, and technology • 4.3 Planning informed by analyzed data and evidence of educational effectiveness Commitment to Learning and Improvement • 4.4 Quality assurance processes; assessment and tracking; comparative data; use of results to revise/improve 4.5 Institutional research capacity; used to assess effectiveness/student learning; review of IR 4.6 Leadership and faculty committed to improvement; faculty assesses teaching and learning; climate and co-curricular objectives assessed • 4.7 Inquiry into teaching learning leads to improvement in curricula, pedagogy and evaluation 4.8 Stakeholder involvement in assessment of effectiveness

  9. Changes that would be needed to be in place at the time of the next visit in Spring 2011 (The Commission identified the following list as illustrative of the changes that would be need to be in place at the time of the next visit). • A campus-wide climate of open and transparent communication. • A functioning system for managing and reporting financial and budgetary systems. • Evidence of campus-wide understanding and use of the database system. • Stable leadership in the presidential role and within the president's cabinet. • Board involvement in fiduciary responsibilities and strategic planning. • A complete and documented system of governance. • Well-developed and fully implemented systems for assessment and quality control.

  10. EER visit report identified problems with: • Financial Aid and Registrar's Office • Governance and relations between the faculty and senior administration • Faculty workload and contractual issues • Current financial situation, and delayed audits • Lack of an academic and university-wide system of assessment • Insufficient academic resources • High levels of student attrition • Lack of formal program review systems

  11. WASC Major Recommendations • Open Communication with WASC and the CDU Campus Community (TF II) • Financial Sustainability, Planning, and Management (TF I, II & III) • Presidential and Board Leadership (TF I, II, III & IV) • Faculty Governance, Policies, and Development (TF II, III & IV) • Assessment of Student Learning, Student Success, and University Endeavors (TF I, II & III)

  12. CDU WASC Task Groups • FINANCIAL STABILITY, PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT • ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS • ACADEMIC STANDARDS and PROCESSES (Self-Monitoring) • LEADERSHIP

  13. Task Group I

  14. Task Group II

  15. Task Group III

  16. Task Group IV

  17. Academic Senate Point #1 There were indications, however, that some of the communications were reactive in nature and not fully collaborative. An example would be that only program directors, not all affected faculty members, were consulted in deciding which programs needed to be closed. (CFR) 1.9 1.8, 1.9, 3.5, 3.9

  18. Response • In fact, the Dean did have several College level meetings with faculty members. • Dr. Orum developed a response and time table of communication. • Deans’ Council developed a data table to share with faculty • Going forward, the academic plan will include program priorities and benchmarks for discussions

  19. Evidence COSH Dean’s Program Assessment, Review and Planning Report and the following appendices (sent to Deans and President on July 1, 2010) Appendix 1 – Academic Program Evaluation Outline Appendix 2 – Report to Academic Senate Appendix 3 – COSH Faculty Meeting 5/6/10 Appendix 4 – COSH Program Closure Memorandum Appendix 5 – COSH Faculty Meeting 5/21/10 Appendix 6 – COSH Faculty Review Process Draft Appendix 7 – Official Notice of COSH Program Closure

  20. Academic Senate Point #2 The panel recommends that: CDU advise WASC immediately and formally in a letter about its default on the $43 million loan and apprise WASC on a regular basis as to how the renegotiation process is proceeding (CFRs 1.3, 3.5, 4.1, 4.2).

  21. Response CDU advised WASC on a letter sent to Dr. Diane Harvey on June 4, 2010. A copy of the letter is posted at: http://www.cdrewu.edu/assets/pdfs/CDUResponsetoWASCIRCLetterre-defaulton43Mloan060310.pdf KEY POINTS: 1. No default on payments. Default on debt to equity and other covenants. 2. WASC Response – July 9, 2010 also posted online at: http://www.cdrewu.edu/assets/pdfs/IRCActionLetter-Amendment-COVER070910.pdf

  22. Response Among the issues we discussed was the 43M bond issued on or about November 2007 based on a loan agreement with CEFA, Morgan Stanley acting as the credit default swap party, Sovereign Bank holding the letter of credit, and Wells Fargo acting as trustee of the funds.The May 13th letter implied that CDU had not informed WASC of the bond default. I appreciate you reminding us that you had first mentioned CDU’s bond covenant defaults in a September 17, 2009 report to WASC submitted in preparation for a meeting with Ralph Wolff(which I joined by conference call) on September 21, 2009 and discussed in that meeting.That report was not part of the materials that the Interim Report Committee panel had been givenin preparation for its review of CDU’s Interim Report, which led to concern not only about CDU delaying the 2009 audit until the bond had been negotiated, but to concern about the bond covenant default itself. - Extracted from Dr. Diane Harvey’s (WASC) Letter regarding the IRC Action Letter Amendment dated July 9, 2010

  23. Response Along with your reminder of the September 17, 2009 report,I especially appreciate your June 3, 2010 detailed response to the request in the IRC letter that CDU “advise WASC immediately and formally in a letter about its default on the $43M (bond) and apprise WASC on a regular basis as to how the renegotiation process is proceeding.”I have sent that letter, along with the September 17, 2009 letter to the panel members to allay any concerns about CDU’s communication with WASC.Given the September 21, 2009 discussion of the bond covenant defaults and the June 3, 2010 careful and detailed explanation of the status of the bond, WASC staff considers it appropriate to reword the paragraph of the IRC letter that refers to this matter. - Extracted from Dr. Diane Harvey’s (WASC) Letter regarding the IRC Action Letter Amendment dated July 9, 2010

  24. Response Teri and I were very pleased with the discussion in our meeting with you on May 20, 2010,appreciate the growing trust that you have shown in WASC, and applaud the great progress that has been made in CDU’s open communication with WASC. We look forward to a continued frank, open, and supportive relationship with you and your team. - Extracted from Dr. Diane Harvey’s (WASC) Letter regarding the IRC Action Letter Amendment dated July 9, 2010

  25. Evidence

  26. Academic Senate Point #3 As we understand it, CDU was able to balance its budget for February and March of this year (2010) but is not certain balanced budgets will continue. It was not clear to the panel what impact the renegotiations of the debt described above would have on the budget (CFRs 1.3, 3.5, 4.1, 4.2).

  27. Response Final budget for 2010-2011 was approved by the BOT on June 4, 2010 and sent to WASC on July 2, 2010. __________________________________ Need to clarify assumptions The conditions at the University not static • Unrestricted (balanced) • Restricted (balanced) • Capital projects (building not balanced)

  28. Academic Senate Point #4 The finance office has begun distributing bi-weekly progress reports to the CFO's office staff but the budget managers receive only monthly reports (CFRs 1.3, 3.5, 4.1, 4.2).

  29. Response • CFO to respond • Task Force I – Financial Stability, Planning and Management (FSPM) should review the need for additional reports • Academic Senate should consult budget managers and finance office to correct report distribution

  30. Academic Senate Point #5 The panel recommends that: • The 2009 audit be completed and submitted to WASC within 30 days of the date of this letter . • The single audit be completed and submitted to WASC within 30 days of the date of this letter. • The 2010 audit be completed before the Special Visit and submitted with the report prepared by CDU for that visit. • The Special Visit team be provided with a complete set of financial statements and detailed financial information in the report submitted in advance of the Special Visit.

  31. Response CDU response letter to WASC was sent to Dr. Harvey on June 11, 2010 indicating the anticipated date of completion of the audits. Copy of the letter may be found at: http://www.cdrewu.edu/assets/pdfs/CDUUpdatetoWASC061110re-AuditsFinances.pdf Per CFO, audits were completed July 12, 2010.

  32. Evidence

  33. Academic Senate Point #6 The panel could not identify a clear structure or process for decision making (CFRs 1.3 and 3.8-3.11).

  34. Response • An organizational structure was approved by the BOT and will be sent to WASC. • Implement key positions (Needs BOT Approval) • Written job descriptions for all administrative leaders now under review

  35. Evidence

  36. Academic Senate Point #7 The panel finds that there may not be enough people on the campus who know how to guide or lead the campus through its difficult times

  37. Response New hires: • Dean of the School of Nursing (SON) • Associate Dean of SON • Executive Director of Student Admin • HR Director • Security Manager

  38. Academic Senate Point #8 Based on AS recommendations the President indicated that CDU is thinking about the possibility of rotating the leadership. The panel was told that the Council of Deans would collectively fulfill the usual role of a provost because CDU is too small to have a provost .

  39. Response Administrative structure already discussed in point #6

  40. Academic Senate Point #9 The Board has engaged in a variety of transformative and developmental activities including interviews with the Executive Service Corps, the addition of a new board member, the request for MOUs (contracts) from all board members, self-evaluations, three-year terms (with no term limits), and the addition of student and faculty representatives on the board. Although these are worthy efforts, the panel did not find evidence that these activities had yet made a difference to the university.

  41. Response Need report from the Board (statement by Board indicating changes in board goals, composition of membership, decision-making processes, and ensuring revenue and financial stability and sustainability)

  42. Academic Senate Point #10 The panel recommends that by the time of the Special Visit: • CDU develop and publish clear decision-making processes and structures • CDU demonstrate substantial progress in creating a culture of shared governance and transparency.

  43. Response • The BOT approved organizational structure will be sent to WASC. WASC Webpage: http://www.cdrewu.edu/about-cdu/wasc • Need to develop policy on shared governance.

  44. Academic Senate Point #11 Serious concerns about the lack of faculty contracts, a trailing issue from the CPR and the EER visits.

  45. Response • MOA was approved and signed. • Faculty contract template was finalized. • Deans are currently in the process of scheduling the signing of faculty contracts with each faculty. All materials are posted at the Academic Senate Webpage: http://www.cdrewu.edu/Academics/Academic_Senate

  46. Evidence

  47. Academic Senate Point #12 The Dean's Council is in the process of revising the Handbook, and sent an MOU to the faculty in March. The faculty wants its rights and responsibilities to be determined before contracts are signed. Given the seriousness of the situation in which CDU finds itself and the urgency of getting closure on this protracted trailing issue, the panel does not understand why this matter remains unresolved.

  48. Response • MOA has already been approved and signed both by CDU Admin and Academic Senate. Copy was sent to WASC in a letter dated June 11, 2010. Faculty Contract has been finalized as well. Copy will be sent to WASC on the President’s next update letter. • Both MOA and Faculty contract may now be found at: http://www.cdrewu.edu/Academics/Academic_Senate.

More Related