Accreditation: University commended

Fresno State has been commended by the visiting WASC Review Panel for demonstrating its institutional capacity to be educationally effective. The panel will recommend to the WASC Commission that the university has sufficient capacity and is well prepared to move forward with its Educational Effectiveness review next fall.

The review team was on campus Nov. 19-21 for the first of two site visits related to reaccreditation by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). This visit, termed the “capacity” or “preparatory” review, examines our capacity to deliver on our institutional mission, and is based on a report that was submitted to WASC last August. The preparatory report and related materials are available online at http://www.csufresno.edu/portfolio.

The WASC Accreditation Steering Committee has organized the university’s accreditation reports around three themes: opportunity, defined as access to quality programs for diverse populations; exploration, the discovery of knowledge, self and society through expanding horizons; and interaction, the transformation through integration of knowledge and experience.

The visiting team consisted of Anthony Ceddia, president of Shippensburg University (chair); Devorah Lieberman, vice provost and special assistant to the president, Campus Initiatives, Portland State University; W. David Conn, vice provost for Academic Programs and Undergraduate Education, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo; Rosina M. Becerra, associate vice chancellor, Faculty Diversity, University of California, Los Angeles; and Rodney T. Sakaguchi, vice chancellor for Administration, Finance, and Operations, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

The review team met with more than 200 individuals in a number of committees and other groups. The first day gave them a broad introduction to the campus, including meetings with deans, the president’s cabinet, senate leadership and the university and foundation boards.

On the second day, a dozen more focused sessions allowed the team to delve more deeply into specific issues. The team met with groups such as the Task Force on Student Success, directors of representative centers and institutes, the University Budget Committee, Associated Students leadership and the Athletic Advisory Council. Meetings with faculty from six departments explored the progress in implementing and using outcomes assessment of student learning. These sessions were followed by separate open meetings for students, graduate students, staff and faculty.

On Nov. 21, the visiting team presented 24 findings to the university community. Among its key findings, the team commended the institution for “its longstanding commitment to access and diversity in student enrollment and services.” Further, the team encouraged the university to “enhance and celebrate these activities” and labeled it a “national model for other institutions interested in becoming generators of social mobility, economic development and student success.”

The Division of Student Affairs and the faculty were commended for their commitment to student success. The staff was recognized as “highly dedicated to helping students and others fulfill their dreams.”

Several findings related to the campus mission as a regional interactive university, commenting on “interactivity with the region and its needs,” the quality of service-learning, and the “highly dedicated and involved advisory board and foundation board.” The establishment of a coordinating group to promote and assess community-based learning activities was recommended.

Another area of emphasis was outcomes assessment of student learning. The highest priority was given to assessment of student learning outcomes in General Education, but the campus was also encouraged to “further program and department assessment with attention paid to student learning outcomes, student work samples, data analysis and program modification.” The visiting team affirmed the campus policy that precludes the use of departmental assessment data for program reduction.

With respect to the faculty, the university was urged to expand its efforts to recruit and retain a diverse faculty, to review the effects on faculty workload and instruction of an increased emphasis on research and to address confusion regarding standards for retention and promotion.

When the review team has completed its report, President Welty will be provided with the opportunity to address “errors of fact” in the document. In the meantime, the WASC Steering Committee is continuing to move forward with preparations for the Educational Effectiveness Review.

Especially in light of the visiting team’s findings, all campus constituent groups are solicited to participate this spring in preparing and reviewing the Educational Effectiveness report, due July 30, 2004. A site visit based on that report will take place in October 2004

Findings, continued

4. Continue to further program and department assessment with attention paid to student learning outcomes, student work samples, data analysis and program modification. (Standard 2 & 4)

5. Increase campus efforts to engage more students and staff in the strategic planning process and budget allocation activities. (Standard 3 & 4)

6. University needs to carefully review and consider the implications of its movement toward more emphasis on faculty research and the resulting effects on faculty workload and classroom instruction. (Standard 2 & 3)

7. There is uncertainty and confusion within the faculty regarding how and what standards are applied in the promotion and tenure process. (Standard 2)

8. The university needs to expand and further institutionalize its efforts to recruit and retain more diverse faculty. (Standards 1 & 3)

9. The university is commended for the number and quality of its service learning programs and activities. Consideration should be given to the establishment of a coordinating group to ensure better campus and off campus awareness and assessment of these programs. (Standard 2 & 3)

10. The institution is commended for the priority given to information technology. However, the effectiveness of coordination and integration of IT through a committee should be periodically evaluated given the high cost these investments. (Standard 3)

11. The institutions mission and purposes are well understood by campus and off campus constituents. (Standard 1)

12. The institution is well led and greatly respected in its service region. Especially appreciated is the institutions interactivity with the region and its needs. (Standard 1)

13. We commend the Student Affairs Division and the Student Success Task force on their commitments to new and continuing students. Efforts should be made to continue and enhance these services even in the face of budget reductions. (Standards 2 & 1)

14. The institution has managed its budget and associated allocation procedures very well. It is better prepared than ever before to handle any new budget crisis. (Standard 3)

15. The universities facilities and grounds are well maintained and the associated agricultural holdings are well managed and used effectively in supporting the academic and service purposes of the institution. (Standard 3)

16. The institution has positively and publicly reaffirmed its integrity by no longer admitting proposition 48 student athletes and having the academic services unit for student athletes report jointly to the provost and the athletic director. (Standard 1)

17. A General Education assessment plan needs to receive the highest priority for development and implementation. (Standard 2 & 3)

18. The faculty is well trained and very committed to student success, teaching and learning, and service to the region. (Standard 3)

19. The administration and staff are well organized and deployed to serve students, faculty and others. Like the faculty, they too are highly dedicated to helping students and others fulfill their dreams. (Standard 3 & 2)

20. The organization and the presentation of the Preparatory Report were well done. It accurately presents evidence of the institution's capacity and performance. (Standard 4)

21. The campus is commended for its movement toward establishing assessment activities which bolsters the strategic planning, curricular decision making, student learning while helping to create a culture of evidence across campus. However, assessment activities aligned with program improvement should not be used in budget reduction decisions as already stated in an existing institutional policy. (Standard 2 & 4)

22. The university is fortunate to have a highly dedicated and involved advisory board and foundation board. (Standard 1)

23. The university is commended for planning a significant capital campaign to raise money to meet various needs including student scholarships. However, the successful completion of a capital campaign of this magnitude could take five to seven years. Usable funds from this endeavor may not be immediately accessible as some campus constituents currently believe. (Standards 3 & 4)

24. The institution's plan for the educational effectiveness review appears to be well designed. There is a need, however, to involve more students on the steering committee for the Effectiveness Review. Also, the steering committee should consider reducing the number of research questions in order to focus more attention on relating evidentiary materials to the issues studied.