Institutional Self-Study Design

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 Gener

Institutional Self-Study Design

Table of Contents

Nature and Scope of Self-Study 1

Specific Goals and Objectives 2

Organizational Structure of the Self-Study Team 4

Subcommittee Charges and Issues to Address 6

Inventory of Support Documents 30

Timeline 30

Editorial Style and Format of Subcommittee Reports 31

Format of the Self-Study Report 32

Profile of the External Evaluation Team 33

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 graduateteaching, 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 optionsthat meld knowledge and application

The University’s stature and achievements have greatly accelerated over the self-study period (2000 – 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 demonstratethe 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 George Philip was appointed interim president 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 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 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 beneficial 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 nine subcommittees are:

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

2 Institutional Resources

3 Leadership and Governance - Administration (including Library and ITS)

4 Institutional Assessment and Assessment of Student Learning

5 Student Admissions and Retention

6 Student Support Services

7 Faculty

8 Educational Offerings - General Education

9 Related Educational Activities

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 by 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 and to evaluate 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 Albany has 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 review thoroughly all units

of the University, to examine our goals, and to examine how we continually assess progress towards achieving those goals 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, and thus 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 is as important 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

1 Examine and assess the state of the institution’s current mission, goals, policies,

procedures, structures, educational and related offerings and activities, research, teaching,assessment mechanisms, and resources

2 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

3 Identify the institution’s strengths and weaknesses relative to each of the accreditation standards, in light of the University’s mission and goals

4 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:

1 Review their general charges, the Middle States’ standards of accreditation, and their respective charge questions

2 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

3 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

4 Gather additional data and information, as needed, to address issues of interest.

5 Conduct interviews, focus groups, or surveys, as needed to support the information needs

of the self-study process

6 Communicate to and be responsive to the broader University community in addressing issues of import throughout the self-study process, culminating 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 III, Student Association president

Final selection of subcommittee chairs was made by Drs Faerman and Messner, with consideredadvice 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 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 Hirosuke Honda, 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 pertaining to 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 assessment and the assessment of student learning The eighth subcommittee is charged with addressing Middle States standards related to the University’s educational offerings, the discipline-based curricula at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, 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 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

In May 2008, interim President Philip issued a call for 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, with only a few exceptions, volunteers were assigned to their first-choice subcommittee Each subcommittee has been 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 regular 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 document 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, including regular updates to a wiki that has been created to support the self-study process (https://wiki.albany.edu/display/middlestates/Home)

Subcommittee Charges and Issues to Address

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

Renewal Fundamental charge: This subcommittee is asked to review comprehensively UAlbany's

compliance with the first two Middle States Standards: Mission and Goals; and Planning,

Resource Allocation, and Renewal The work of this subcommittee is particularly important in documenting how effectively the University has functioned and been guided by its core mission and goals during the self-study time-frame (2000 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 and opportunities that UAlbany faces in the current higher education environment, both nationally and internationally, and particularly within New York State, 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:

1 How clearly are the University’s mission and goals defined?

2 To what degree are goals consistent with the University’s stated mission, and how are they reflected in the allocation of resources?

3 How extensively do the University’s mission and goals focus on student learning, other specific outcomes, and institutional improvement?

4 How effectively do UAlbany’s mission and goals support scholarly and creative activity,

at levels and of the kinds appropriate to UAlbany's historical standing as a research University?

5 To what extent were the institutional goals and mission developed through collaborative participation by the University community and faculty governance, and in what ways have they been periodically evaluated and formally approved?

6 How effectively are UAlbany’s mission and goals publicized, and how widely known are they by the University community?

7 How effective is the University’s mission in guiding faculty, administration, staff and governing bodies in making decisions related to planning, resource allocation, program and curricular development, and the definition of program outcomes?

8 To what extent has UAlbany’s 1992 mission statement affected (positively and

negatively) planning, resource allocation, and program and curricular development acrossthe various levels of the University?

9 To what degree do UAlbany’s mission and goals address external as well as internal issues and constituencies?

10 How are the University’s mission and goals used at different levels within UAlbany (e.g., institutional level, by schools/colleges, or by departments), and how effective are they in guiding decision making?

11 How do academic and administrative units plan, allocate resources, and renew

themselves and how effective are they in those tasks with respect to the university’s mission and goals?

12 To what extent 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?

13 How has the achievement of UAlbany’s mission and specific goals been assessed since the last self-study, and has this assessment been timely and effective?

Issues to keep in mind and weave into discussions:

1 How has the funding context for UAlbany influenced planning and resource allocation over the self-study period? What have been the effects on attempts at institutional

renewal?

2 Similarly, how have transitions in executive leadership affected (positively and

negatively) UAlbany’s planning processes, resource allocation, and attempts at

institutional renewal?

3 To what extent are UAlbany’s mission and goals influenced by external contexts,

including SUNY Central Administration policies and practices?

Fundamental elements of integrity to weave into discussions:

1 To what degree have changes and issues affecting institutional mission, goals, sites, programs, operations, and other material changes been disclosed accurately and in a timely manner to the institution's community, to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, and to other appropriate regulatory bodies?

information as the Middle States Commission on Higher Education annual institutional profile, the self-study or periodic review report, the team report, and the Commission’s action, is accurately reported and made publicly available to the University's community?Methodologies: This subcommittee will review the available data and documents, beginning with the currently approved mission and University goals School/college and departmental mission statements and goals (perhaps on a sampling basis) will also be reviewed for

consistency with the overarching University mission and goals Interviews or requests for process documentation from campus officials such as deans, department chairs, governance chairs, Office of Management and Budget staff, and others involved with planning and resource allocation functions may also be considered

Membership:

Marcia Sutherland (chair) - Associate Professor and Department Chair, Africana Studies

Kathleen Botelho - Personnel Associate, Human Resources Management

Cynthia Brady - Assistant to the Vice President, Student Success

Ray Bromley - Vice Provost for International Education; Professor, Geography and Planning Mary Fiess - Director of Executive Communications, Office of Media and Marketing

Robert Geer - CNSE Vice President for Academic Affairs and CNSE Chief Academic Officer; Professor of Nanoscale Science

Jil Hanifan - Director, Writing Center; Lecturer, English

Kevin Kinser - Associate Professor, Educational Administration and Policy Studies

Elaine Lasda Bergman - Reference Librarian and Bibliographer for Gerontology and Reference, University Libraries

David Smith - Associate Professor, Finance

Daniel Truchan III – President, Student Association

Lynn Videka - Vice President for Research; Professor of Social Welfare

Felix Wu - Director, Systems Management and Operations, Information Technology Services

Subcommittee 2 - Institutional Resources

Fundamental charge: The allocation of resources among programs, units, and individuals is an

indicator of institutional priorities and is therefore reflective of the institution’s mission and goalsthrough linkages to financial planning It is expected that through the course of this

subcommittee’s work, the University’s methods for reviewing, analyzing, and monitoring: a) resource availability, and b) resource allocation policies and procedures, will be documented and assessed for their adequacy, efficiency and effectiveness

Charge questions:

1 How does the University assess and plan for resource availability to the University and itsconstituent parts? To what extent do resource assessment and planning inform annual budget and multi-year projections for the institution, as well as its constituents? What changes, if any, are needed in the resource allocation processes to better support the mission of the University?

2 How are resource allocation policies, procedures, or models developed? How does this process involve stakeholders? How are conflicts among stakeholders addressed during this process? How do we know that the decision-making process is conveyed to

individuals of all constituents with accuracy and in a timely manner? Do the

constituencies regard these processes as transparent and fair? How satisfactory are these policies, procedures, or models for determining the allocation of institutional resources?

To what extent are these policies, procedures, and models able to incorporate changes in institutional resources, strategic plans, and priorities of the Universities various

constituents?

3 How are allocation policies and procedures developed, modified and communicated as the needs of the University and its constituents evolve? How does the University ensure that key constituencies are represented in the crafting of policies? How are these policiesmodified to meet the changing needs of the University?

4 How adequate are the University’s comprehensive facilities master plan and

facilities/infrastructure life-cycle management plans? How are these plans utilized and updated?

5 How does the University plan for learning and research resources (e.g., classrooms, information resources, technology, etc.) that are fundamental to all educational and research programs and libraries? How well are these resources supported and staffed to accomplish the University’s mission? How are decisions reached regarding the number

of faculty, staff, and administrative support personnel? What methodologies are applied

to measure the adequacy of classrooms, information resources, and technology?

6 How adequate is the University’s educational and research equipment acquisition

replacement process? How is the process evaluated and revised?

7 What institutional controls are in place to ensure the appropriate and legal use of

financial, administrative, and auxiliary operations, and how effective are these controls?

Do people consider these policies to be rational and consistent? What are the procedures that determine the allocation of resources, and are they sufficiently flexible? Do the controls in place impact negatively on the efficiency of resource use? Is the time to adoption of new procedures assessed to improve communication and adoption?

8 How does the university respond to audit recommendations? Is the process designed to align with the overall facilities and resource allocation planning processes? How do audit flags assist the university to improve processes and procedures? How are these changes communicated to key constituencies?

9 What are the campus procedures for conducting periodic assessments of the effective and efficient use of institutional resources? What are the strategies employed to measure and assess the level, and efficient utilization, of resources to support the University’s mission and goals?

Data available: This subcommittee will review the available data and documents, beginning with the currently approved mission and University goals Other data and reports include: MSCHE Periodic Review Report (2005), which details the campus budgeting process; divisionalacademic equipment replacement plans; internal control policies and compliance reports;

facilities master plan and process documents; classroom utilization reports from the space

committee; minutes of the University Planning and Policy Council (UPC); and others, to be determined by the subcommittee

Methodologies: This subcommittee will review the available data and documents relating to resource allocation and budgeting, beginning with the currently approved mission and Universitygoals A primary source of information will be the office of the Vice President for Finance and Business (F&B), and interviews with F&B staff by the subcommittee may be entertained.

Membership:

Timothy Gage (chair) - Professor, Anthropology;

Erik Andersen - Assistant Director, Office of Student Accounts

Yu-Hui Chen - Bibliographer and Outreach Librarian for Education, University Libraries

Dolores Cimini - Director, Middle Earth Peer Assistance Program; Assistant Director for

Prevention and Program Evaluation, University Counseling Center

Lisa Donohue - Assistant Director of Environmental Health and Safety, Office of Environmental and Safety

Brian Gabriel - Assistant Dean, College of Computing and Information

Daniel Goodwin - Associate Professor and Department Chair, Art

Maciej Kucharczyk - Fiscal Officer, School of Education

Mary McCarthy - Director of Social Work Education Consortium, School of Social Welfare Anna Radkowski-Lee - Library Personnel Officer, University Libraries

Carole Sweeton - Director ITS Client Support Services, Information Technology Services

Richard Zitomer - Professor, Biological Sciences

Subcommittee 3 - Leadership and Governance - Administration (including Library and

ITS) Fundamental charge: This subcommittee is asked to focus on three critical aspects of

institutional structure: faculty governance, administration, and the institutional governance by theState University of New York Board of Trustees and the University at Albany University

Council These are the critical leadership structures that ensure that UAlbany stays focused on its mission and objectives, and that it conducts itself with integrity in all regards Through examination of the Middle States standards of accreditation with regard to these three elements, this subcommittee will describe, with appropriate reference to documentation and evidence, how these leadership groups have effectively performed over the self-study period, and also

recommend or suggest avenues for improvement The subcommittee also will consider how, union agreements, the Research Foundation, University at Albany Foundation, and other

organizations influence governance and administration at the University at Albany

General Question:

To what extent do members of the various constituencies involved in University governance understand their own functions and responsibilities and those of others within shared governanceprocesses? How well are the established processes of shared governance followed in arriving at University policies and other decisions?

Charge questions:

Part I – Institutional Governing Bodies

1 Given the dictates of New York State statute and the organization, roles, and

responsibilities of the University's governing bodies, how effectively have these bodies performed over the self-study period?

2 How well defined are the governing bodies' roles? Are their roles communicated and shared with the University community in an effective way? How effectively do the governing bodies of the University interact with administration and faculty governance, and how is this measured or assessed?

3 What information about the University and its operation is regularly presented to and discussed by the governing bodies? How effectively are faculty, administration, and students able to communicate regularly with the governing bodies?

4 On what basis, and through what mechanisms, do the governing bodies certify to the Commission that UAlbany is in compliance with the eligibility requirements,

accreditation standards and policies of the Commission, and that they describe

themselves in identical terms to all their accrediting and regulatory agencies, and

communicate any changes in UAlbany’s accredited status? Do the governing bodies agree to disclose information, including levels of governing body compensation, if any, required by the Commission to carry out its accrediting responsibilities?

5 How effectively do the governing bodies implement their conflict of interest policies addressing such issues as remuneration, contractual relationships, employment, family, financial or other interests that could pose conflicts of interest, and assuring that those interests are disclosed and that they do not interfere with the impartiality of governing body members or outweigh the greater duty to secure and ensure the academic and fiscal integrity of the institution?

6 To what degree do the governing bodies assist in generating or securing in effective ways the resources needed to sustain and improve UAlbany?

7 How effectively do the processes for orienting new members of these governing bodies, and for providing continuing updates for current members on the institution's mission, organization, and academic programs and objectives, operate at the University?

8 To what degree have the policies and procedures of the Board of Trustees been

implemented in an appropriate manner with respect to the appointment of the chief executive officer? How effectively have periodic assessments of institutional leadership and governance been conducted and the results utilized in a meaningful fashion?

Part II – Faculty Governance

1 How effectively defined is UAlbany’s system of collegial governance, as reflected in written policies outlining governance responsibilities of administration and faculty that are readily available to the campus community? Do the relationships among the

University-wide, school/college, and departmental levels of faculty governance operate in

a way faithfully reflecting these written policies?

2 How effectively does faculty governance interact with governing bodies and with the administration? How is this measured or assessed?

3 How reliably does the operation of faculty governance reflect its written governing documents, such as its constitution, by-laws, enabling legislation, charter or other

documents that delineate the governance structure and provide for collegial governance?

4 How effectively does faculty governance relate to and/or inform administrative operation given its structure, composition, duties and responsibilities?

5 How effective are the working relationships between faculty governance and the

president, other administrators, and university governance? How is this measured or assessed?

6 How effectively does the University Senate represent the various University

constituencies (i.e., faculty, students, and staff) and inform these broader constituencies

of the work of the Senate and the administration?

7 How effectively do student organizations, particularly the Student Association and the Graduate Student Organization, participate in the University Senate?

8 How effectively is faculty governance assessed at the University-wide, school/college, and departmental levels? Do the processes in place for improving governance structures and procedures operate as intended, thereby producing such improvements?

9 To what extent are the relationships between union agreements and faculty governance understood at the University, and to what extent do these relationships operate as

specified?

Part III - Administration

1 How is the president's administrative role formally defined, particularly in regard to the achievement of University goals and responsibility for the University administration? Dothe operations of the University closely align with this definition?

2 How clearly defined is the president's role in relation to that of the SUNY Board of Trustees, University Council, and the University Senate through written policies? How widely available is information regarding these policies?

3 How effectively does the administration interact with governing bodies and with faculty governance? How is this measured or assessed?

4 How clearly are the requirements and qualifications of the president and senior

administrative officers, such as vice presidents, formulated and defined? How effectively

is the performance of the president and senior administrative officers assessed?

5 Are the various administrative units appropriately staffed, given the overall institutional mission and goals?

6 To what extent do clear lines of organizational authority and responsibility exist to foster

an appropriate degree of accountability in administrative offices?

7 To what extent do administrative units review their mission and goals, and assess the performance of their activities in pursuit thereof? Are there clear and consistent campus policies and procedures for the regular review of administrative functions?

8 What types of professional development or administrative training are regularly offered

to administrative staff to promote excellence in their functions, and how effective are they?

9 Do adequate information and decision support systems exist to appropriately inform administrative decisions? In particular, is the information technology infrastructure adequate and well functioning to support both the academic mission and the

administration's support of it?

10 Do the policies and procedures in place to enhance data security, and prevent the

inappropriate use of information in University operations, operate in an effective manner?

11 How do various union agreements covering University personnel, and other external organizations, relate to and influence administrative decisions? Do these relationships operate as specified in these agreements?

12 To what extent does the Libraries’ infrastructure effectively support the academic and research mission of the University?

Fundamental elements of integrity to weave into discussions:

1 Have the administration and appropriate governance councils worked together to developfair and impartial processes, published and widely available, to address student

grievances, such as alleged violations of institutional policies? To what degree are studentgrievances addressed promptly, appropriately, and equitably?

2 How consistently are fair and impartial practices in the hiring, evaluation and dismissal ofemployees applied? How effectively and thoroughly are related decisions documented?

3 To what degree has institutional leadership instituted sound ethical practices and respect for individuals through its teaching, scholarship/research, service, and administrative practice, including the avoidance of conflict of interest or the appearance of such conflict

in all its activities and among all its constituents?

4 How well does the University promote a climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, and staff for a range of backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives?

5 Has UAlbany modified its structure and operations in effective ways based on periodic reviews and assessments of the integrity of institutional policies, processes, practices, andthe manner in which these are implemented?

Data available: New York State Education Law, Article 8, Section 356 under which the

University Council operates; the University Senate Charter and bylaws; Undergraduate and graduate bulletins, which contain academic policies and codes of student conduct; UUP and CSEA labor agreements, which detail hiring and grievance policies and procedures; and other documents as to be solicited by the subcommittee

Methodologies: This subcommittee will review pertinent documents, and may seek to interview campus officials and student representatives in developing its report

Membership:

David McCaffrey (chair) - Distinguished Teaching Professor and Collins Fellow, Public

Administration and Policy

Robert Bangert-Drowns - Acting Dean, School of Education

Nan Carroll - Director, Center for Legislative Development

Richard Collier - Senior Research Associate, Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness Edward Cupoli - Professor and Head of Nanoeconomics Constellation

Martin Fogelman - Visiting Assistant Professor, Management

Jane Kadish - Associate Director for Applications Development, Information Technology

Services

Sheila Mahan - Assistant Vice President, Enrollment Management

Candace Merbler - Reference Support Associate, University Libraries; President, Albany Chapter

of United University Professions

Kabel Stanwicks - Head of Circulation and Media Services, University Libraries

Helen Strother - Director, CAS Computing Services, College of Arts and Sciences

Kathleen Thies - Manager, International Tax and Immigration Services, Human Resources Management

Daniel Truchan III - President, Student Association

Subcommittee 4 - Institutional Assessment and Assessment of Student Learning

Fundamental charge: This subcommittee has one of the most critical charges, that of detailing

how UAlbany assesses both its broader institutional mission and goals, and student learning As such, this subcommittee is asked to review and document the degree to which UAlbany has developed and implemented an assessment process that evaluates its overall effectiveness in achieving its mission and goals, and its compliance with related accreditation standards At the very heart of the academic enterprise is student learning This subcommittee is also asked to gauge the degree to which UAlbany has policies and procedures in place to ensure at graduation,

or other appropriate points in time, that its students have the knowledge, skills, and competenciesthe University professes to instill in them

Charge questions:

Part I - Institutional Assessment

1 How have UAlbany’s assessment processes evolved over the self-study period, and how has this been impacted (both positively and negatively) by the frequent changes in senior administrative leadership?

a How does UAlbany evaluate and improve its total range of programs and services, in relation to its mission and goals? How are these assessment processes documented, organized, and sustained to achieve this end? In particular, is the assessment process aligned with UAlbany’s mission; does it contain clearly articulated institutional, unit-level, and program-level goals that encompass all programs, services, and initiatives; are the goals and programs appropriately integrated with each other?

b Is the process systematic, sustained, and thorough in the use of multiple qualitative and/or quantitative measures that clearly and purposefully relate to the goals they are assessing?

c Are the assessment measures of sufficient quality that results can be used withconfidence to inform decisions?

2 Do assessment processes contain clear and realistic guidelines and a timetable? Are they also supported by appropriate investment of institutional resources?

3. Are there provisions for periodic evaluation of the effectiveness and comprehensiveness

of UAlbany’s assessment process?

a Are the evaluations performed in a timely manner?

b How well are the provisions working?

4 What types of assessment plans or evaluation procedures exist in each of UAlbany’s administrative units?

5 For units with formal assessment plans:

a Are assessment plans based on the unit’s mission and goals, in relation to overall University mission and goals?

b Do the unit assessment plans focus on specific outcomes that are related to their mission?

c Are faculty, staff, and/or students from outside the unit involved in the unit’s assessment efforts?

d Do unit assessment efforts maximize the use of existing data, but also gather additional data if needed?

e To what degree are assessment results shared within and outside of individual units to inform both unit and campus-wide planning and resource allocation?

f Are goals, objectives, and timetables for unit assessment plans reasonable, andare they supported by the needed resources to execute activities?

g What evidence exists to demonstrate that administrative units are “closing the loop” in terms of using assessment results to reflect on and adjust programs and/or services, and to also re-examine and adjust the assessment process itself?

6 For units without formal assessment plans:

a To what degree do units without formal assessment plans evaluate their performance and goal achievement? How do they do this, if that is the case, and what are the parallels with formalized assessment processes? What specific evidence can be brought to bear on this question?

b What are the obstacles to developing and/or implementing assessment plans inthese units?

c Can current assessment procedures in other administrative offices be adapted?

d Are alternatives to formal assessment plans, as will be detailed in the answers

to the items noted above, sufficient to meet Middle States’ assessment standards, or are formal assessment plans absolutely required in all administrative units, regardless of the cost/benefit of so doing?

e What University or vice presidential supports are needed to assist offices in developing assessment plans and activities?

7 What evidence is there that faculty, administration, staff, students, and external

constituencies are involved in the assessment efforts?

Part II –Assessment of Student Learning

1 Are there articulated statements at the institutional, program, and course levels that clearly state expected student learning outcomes?

2 Are the educational outcomes at the program level appropriately integrated with broader institutional learning outcome goals, and are they consonant with the institution’s

mission, and with the standards of higher education in the relevant disciplines?

3 To what extent does UAlbany employ a well documented, organized, systematic, and sustained assessment process to evaluate and improve student learning? Is it marked by the use of multiple qualitative and/or quantitative measures that maximize the use of existing data and information?

4 Do assessments of student learning clearly and purposefully relate to the goals they are assessing, and are they of sufficient quality that results can be used with confidence to inform decisions?

5 Do assessments of student learning include direct evidence of student learning?

a Is the evidence of student learning sufficient?

b Is the evidence of student learning used?

6 To what degree do assessments support collaboration between and among the faculty large, the administration, and faculty governance?

at-7 To what degree are students expected, or invited, to help shape student learning

objectives and assessment of those objectives?

8 What is the degree of regularized, collaborative institutional processes and protocols for ensuring the dissemination, analysis, discussion, and use of assessment results among all relevant constituents, within a reasonable schedule?

9 Do assessments have clear, realistic guidelines, assign responsibility to individuals or appropriate bodies for specific activities, contain reasonable timetables, and are they supported by appropriate investment of institutional resources?