WASC Update July 13, 2010. Structure of this Presentation WASC Standards WASC Specific Concerns Closing the loop – specifically with the five (5) major

WASC Update

July 13, 2010

Structure of this Presentation

WASC StandardsWASC Specific ConcernsClosing the loop – specifically with the

five (5) major concerns/ clustering of CFRs

How everyone can continue to help

Academic Senate RequestsThe 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.

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.

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

WASC Standards at a GlanceStandard 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)


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


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

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.

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

WASC Major Recommendations

1. Open Communication with WASC and the CDU Campus Community (TF II)

2. Financial Sustainability, Planning, and Management (TF I, II & III)

3. Presidential and Board Leadership (TF I, II, III & IV)

4. Faculty Governance, Policies, and Development (TF II, III & IV)

5. Assessment of Student Learning, Student Success, and University Endeavors (TF I, II & III)

CDU WASC Task Groups

I. FINANCIAL STABILITY, PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

II. ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

III. ACADEMIC STANDARDS and PROCESSES (Self-Monitoring)

IV. LEADERSHIP

Task Group I

FINANCIAL STABILITY, PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

Members E-mail Tel. No.

Vidya Kaushik [email protected] 310-541-5980

Richard Baker [email protected] 323-563-4991

Nate Clark [email protected] 323-357-3674

Timothy Watkins [email protected] 323-563-5639

Ron Lau [email protected] 323-563-5860

mailto:[email protected]





Task Group II

ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS


Gail Orum [email protected] 323-563-4815

Darlene Parker-Kelly [email protected] 323-563-9340

Monica Ferrini [email protected] 323-563-5962

Sondos Islam [email protected] 323-563-5861

William Shay [email protected] 323-563-4840

Lola Ogunyemi [email protected] 310-761-4725




Task Group III

ACADEMIC STANDARDS and PROCESSES (Self-Monitoring)


Chris Reid [email protected] 323-357-3653

Daphne Calmes [email protected] 323-563-4816

Ligia Perez [email protected] 323-563-4950

Victor Chaban [email protected] 323-357-3672

Ernie Smith [email protected] 323-533-5767

Laurie Richlin [email protected] 323-563-5833

Beverly Lassiter-Brown [email protected] 323-563-5892

Task Group IV

LEADERSHIP


Keith Norris [email protected] 323-563-5985

Eric Bing [email protected] 323-357-3447

Andrew Leeka [email protected] 213-482-2779

Theodore Friedman [email protected] 310-668-5197

Samantha Gizerian [email protected] 323-563-5884

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

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

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 6 – COSH Faculty Review Process Draft

Appendix 7 – Official Notice of COSH Program Closure


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).

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

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 given in 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

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.


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.


Evidence


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).

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)


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).

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


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.

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.

Evidence


The panel could not identify a clear structure or process for decision making (CFRs 1.3 and 3.8-3.11).

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

Evidence


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

Response

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


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 .

Response

Administrative structure already discussed in point #6


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.

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)


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.

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.


Serious concerns about the lack of faculty contracts, a trailing issue from the CPR and the EER visits.

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

Evidence


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.

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.

Evidence


The panel recommends that by the time of the Special Visit:

CDU establish a clear written statement of faculty rights and responsibilities that has been approved by the Board and the faculty.

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 update letter.

Both MOA and Faculty contract may now be found at: http://www.cdrewu.edu/Academics/Academic_Senate.

Evidence


Your initial overview covered events that had happened since the writing of the report. The most significant of those was the loss of accreditation for the Physician's Assistant Program, the largest program in the College of Science and Health. The result of that accreditation review was unexpected at CDU because CDU had conducted its own mock site visit in advance of the ARC-PA visit.

Response

TIMELINES of PA Events

Jan 2007 ARC-PA visitMar 2007 Continued Accreditation with citationsSpring 2008 Consultants to assist with admissions processJuly 2008 Hired new program directorSept 2008 Program director resignedNov 2008 Notice of Self-Study/Site VisitJan 2009 Program faculty prepared plan for correction with a timeline for site visit (Dean

met monthly with program director for updates)June 2009 Dean met with Program director and faculty to assess progressJuly 2009 Consultants assisted with self-study processJuly 2009 Dean met with program director and faculty to assess progressSep 2009 Dean requested draft of self-study documentOct 2009 Dean requested draft of self-study document, received draft of appendicesNov 2009 Self study submittedDec 2009 Mock site visit followed up with individual meetings between faculty and DeanJan 2010 Site visitFeb 2010 Responded to observations from site visitMar 2010 Received Notice of Adverse Action, decision made for Voluntary Withdrawal

after discussions with President, PA faculty, Consultants, and students

ARC-PA Summary of Findings

The following summarize the basis of the citations from ARC-PAAlignment of Resources/BudgetProgram leadershipRegional accreditation probationProgram review/assessment

Plan for PA Program

Focus Area 1:Providing a quality education to current students

Change in leadership-Dr. Reid has administrative oversight Contracted with consultant who has developed a plan for teach

out and evaluation Improving the quality of the lectures using faculty with current

clinical expertise Increased recruitment of clinical sites to improve the clinical

education component of the program Enhancing the curriculum with additional hands-on workshops

(simulation, suturing, venipuncture) Implemented use of Typhon® - Clinical Tracking Software Providing extensive board review followed by remediation prior to

exit exam Engage with program alums to advise as to how program can be

improved

Plan for PA Program

Focus Area 2:Develop a new master’s level Physician Assistant Program after WASC accreditation is obtained. Increasing board review with remediation to improve board

passage rates to national standards (necessary to justify eligibility for the new program with ARC-PA)

Developed a program director search committee under the leadership of Dr. Gloria McNeal

Search committee includes community stakeholders, PA program directors, and CDU alums

Candidates are being reviewed, with some interviews are being scheduled

Consultants are being interviewed to assist with development of the new program

Timeline for New PA Program

Teach out current classes by August 2011 Recruit program director/additional faculty Develop a self-study for the new program by Spring

2011 Present self-study to required college and university

committees Submit self-study to ARC-PA Submit substantive change to WASC Site visits by accrediting bodies Begin admissions process January 2012 Admit new class August 2012

ARC-PA Critical Findings

The following areas are being addressed accordingly Alignment of Resources/Budget-Internal review of

program array in COSH Program leadership-search committee Regional accreditation probation-input from WASC

committees, particularly curriculum assessment Program review/assessment-consultant has

developed an initial plan, which must be incorporated into the WASC process


The panel is concerned that the College of Science and Health may not be able to move forward with programs that are viable and effective.

Response

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 OutlineAppendix 2 – Report to Academic SenateAppendix 3 – COSH Faculty Meeting 5/6/10Appendix 4 – COSH Program Closure MemorandumAppendix 5 – COSH Faculty Meeting 5/21/10Appendix 6 – COSH Faculty Review Process DraftAppendix 7 – Official Notice of COSH Program Closure

Academic Senate Point #16a

The panel recommends that:

a. CDU create and implement clear processes for program assessment and review, including how the results and findings from these quality assurance processes are connected to decision making, planning and budgeting.

Response 16a

The Academic Standards and Processes (ASP) report was sent to the President and Deans and a corrective action plan was requested by July 16, 2010.

The next step is a meeting of Deans’ Council, Program Directors, and ASP Chair to address corrective actions (to be scheduled by Deans’ Council)

Evidence

Academic Senate Point #16b


b. CDU create and publish a multi-year program review schedule.

Response 16b

Final schedule needs to be completed Deans and Program Directors will meet

and provide suggestions of experts for interim external review

Academic Senate Point #16c


c. CDU produce evidence demonstrating the engagement of the program review and assessment processes, including the reports of all program reviews.

Response 16c

Deans will produce a report that includes report of review of programs and changes made including use of student data regarding attrition and enrollment; and statement and schedule by deans with program directors of the internal review process adhering to the academic policy handbook.

Evidence

Academic Senate Point #16d


d. The College of Science and Health should engage in and complete an internal review of its sustainability, including the number, kind, size, and quality of all of its academic programs, its faculty/student ratios, and its alignment with the financial plans for the institution, addressing questions about the future of the College and its viability.

Response 16d

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 4 – COSH Program Closure Memorandum


Appendix 6 – COSH Faculty Review Process Draft

Appendix 7 – Official Notice of COSH Program Closure

Deans’ Council academic plan (document with narrative, policy, criteria, review process, completion dates, benchmarks, linkage to school and college plans). Reference to other university academic plan for 2011-2012.

Closing the Loop #1 - Communication

Communication with WASC Regular reports sent to WASC regarding concerns or new

information Continue reports to WASC as recommended in July 9,

2010 letter Posting and push-out of information via broadcast Academic Senate should recommend information to send

to WASC via Administrative – Academic Senate WASC Thursday meeting(s)

Review of dashboard

Closing the Loop #1 - Communication

Communication at CDU Deans, Academic Senate Leadership and Administrative leaders

should hold weekly informal meeting with CDU community Professor Cynthia Davis and Dr. Fred Dominguez are creating

communication plans with the Academic Senate Senate members and Deans should bring WASC information to

faculty meetings, staff meeting and meeting with students Student government leaders need to meet with campus leaders

Closing the Loop #2 – Financial Sustainability, Planning and Management

Need budget plan for 2011-2012 beginning August 2010 University budget committee needs to be formed to review 2010

revisions and 2011 plan Administrative department needs advisory committee to review

work plan Campus data plan needed to infuse student data into campus

planning Academic Senate needs to review academic plan including data,

decisions, and documents Academic Senate needs to help implement the strategic plan and

unit plans tied to the budget

Sample - Budget Process of St Cloud State University

Closing the Loop #3 – Faculty Governance, Policies, and Development

Complete faculty contract: Academic Senate should ask Deans’ Council for an update and status including needs from faculty

Academic Senate needs to review policies and procedures related to academic plan and university strategic plan

Academic Senate and Deans’ Council should develop a schedule for faculty development, policy implementation, and training

Academic Senate and Administration should develop a specific CDU policy on shared governance

Closing the Loop #4 – Presidential and Board Leadership

BOT should report to Academic Senate on the progress of their restructure

BOT should report to Academic Senate on decisions regarding the President

The Leadership task force should present and update to the Academic Senate

Closing the Loop #5 – Assessment of Student Learning, Program Review and Program Quality

The Academic Standards and Processes (ASP) task group will complete its assessment in July 30, 2010 for the academic year 2009-2010

The ASP will need to begin 2010-2011 work in August 2010 and needs additional committee members

The ASP will need to revise practices for 2010-2011 academic year based on best practices

Deans’ annual report of programs will need to be completed by August 31, 2010

Academic Senate should help plan major conferences/convocations related to university learning objectives

Ms. Davis and Dr. Dominguez are now planning a forum on community resources

Deans’ Council to complete the master schedule of program review in August 31, 2010

The Academic Senate, Deans’ Council, and Research Enterprise should develop a report on integrating research and student learning objectives

Suggested Check List

Thank you!Thank you!

Documents

WASC Update July 13, 2010. Structure of this Presentation WASC Standards WASC Specific Concerns Closing the loop – specifically with the five (5) major