NEASC FIVE YEAR REPORT

1
NEASC FIVE YEAR REPORT

• FITCHBURG STATE COLLEGE
• JANUARY 2007

2
FIVE YEAR REPORT GOALS

• Review the changes in the standards that will
  need to be addressed in 2012. Identify ways in
  which the institution will need to incorporate
  these changes into its future planning.
• Review changes in the college in the past five
  years.
  
• Summarize the current status of the college with
  regard to each of the NEASC standards.
  
• Analyze how each of the five cited areas of
  emphasis in the 2002 report have been addressed.
  
  
• Identify goals for the future.

3
NEW EMPHASES IN THE NEASC STANDARDS

• INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY
• 1.1 The institutions mission provides the basis
  upon which the institution identifies its
  priorities, plans for the future and evaluates
  its endeavors
• 2.3 The institution has a demonstrable record of
  success in implementing the results of its
  planning.
  

4
New Emphasis in The NEASC Standards

• 4.10 Institutions undertaking substantive
  change demonstrate their capacity to undertake
  such initiatives and to assure that the new
  academic programming meets the standards of
  quality of the institution and the Commissions
  Standards and policies.
• 9.3 The institutions multi-year financial
  planning is realistic and reflects the capacity
  of the institution to depend on identified
  sources of revenue and ensure the advancement of
  educational quality and services for students.

5
NEW EMPHASES IN THE NEASC STANDARDS

• PROGRAM REVIEWS
• 4.8 The institution develops, approves,
  administers, and on a regular cycle reviews its
  degree programs
  
• 4.9 The evaluation of existing programs includes
  an external perspective and assessment of their
  effectiveness.
  

6
NEW EMPHASES IN THE NEASC STANDARDS

• The CIHE identified several ways to incorporate
  an external perspective specialized
  accreditation review by state Board external
  consultants benchmarking against peer
  institutions and analysis of best practices.

7
NEW EMPHASES IN THE NEASC STANDARDS

• ROLE OF THE BOARD
• 3.2 The governing board is the legally
  constituted body ultimately responsible for the
  institutions quality and integrity. The board
  demonstrates sufficient independence to ensure it
  can act in the institutions best interest. The
  composition of the board includes representation
  of the public interest and reflects the areas of
  competence needed to fulfill the
  responsibilities
• 3.3 The board has a clear understanding of the
  institutions distinctive mission and purposes

8
NEW EMPHASES IN THE NEASC STANDARDS

• 3.4 The board systematically develops and ensures
  its own effectiveness
  
• 3.5 The board appoints and periodically reviews
  the performance of the chief executive officer
  whose full-time or major responsibility is to the
  institution

9
REVIEW OF THE STANDARDS

• The 2006 Standards embed institutional
  effectiveness and assessment of student learning
  at multiple points throughout the standards. The
  institutional effectiveness statements are
  highlighted at the end of each standard.

10
REVIEW OF THE STANDARDS

• Standard One Mission and Purpose
• 1.5 The institution periodically evaluates
  the content and pertinence of its mission and
  purposes, assessing their usefulness in providing
  overall direction in planning and resource
  allocation. The results of this evaluation are
  used to enhance institutional effectiveness.

11
REVIEW OF THE STANDARDS

• Standard Two Planning and Evaluation
• 2.7 The institution determines the
  effectiveness of its planning and evaluation
  activities on an on-going basis. Results of
  these activities are used to further enhance the
  institutions implementation of its purposes and
  objectives.

12
REVIEW OF THE STANDARDS

• Standard Three Organization and Governance
• 3.12 The effectiveness of the institutions
  organizational structure and system of governance
  is improved through periodic and systematic
  review.

13
REVIEW OF THE STANDARDS

• Standard Four The Academic Program
• 4.51 The institutions principal evaluation
  focus is the quality, integrity, and
  effectiveness of its programs. Evaluation
  endeavors and systematic assessment are
  demonstrably effective in the improvement of
  academic offerings and student learning.

14
REVIEW OF THE STANDARDS

• Standard Five Faculty
• 5.22 The institution periodically evaluates
  the sufficiency of and support for the faculty
  and the effectiveness of the faculty in teaching
  and advising, scholarship, service, and as
  appropriate to institutional mission, research
  and creative activity. The results of these
  evaluations are used to enhance fulfillment of
  the institutions mission.

15
REVIEW OF THE STANDARDS

• Standard Six Students
• 6.18 Through a program of regular and
  systematic evaluation, the institution assesses
  the effectiveness in admitting and retaining
  students and the effectiveness of its student
  services to advance institutional purposes.
  Information obtained through this evaluation is
  used to revise these goals and services and
  improve their achievements.

16
REVIEW OF THE STANDARDS

• Standard Seven Library and Other Information
  Resources
  
• 7.12 The institution regularly and
  systematically evaluates the adequacy,
  utilization, and impact of its library,
  information resources and services, and
  instructional and information technology and uses
  the findings to improve and increase the
  effectiveness of these services.

17
REVIEW OF THE STANDARDS

• Standard Eight Physical and Technological
  Resources
  
• 8.6 The institutions ongoing evaluation of
  its physical and technological resources in light
  of its mission, current needs and plans for the
  future is a basis of realistic planning and
  budget allocation.

18
REVIEW OF THE STANDARDS

• Standard Nine Financial Resources
• 9.14 The institution has in place
  appropriate internal and external mechanisms to
  evaluate its fiscal condition and financial
  management and to maintain its integrity. The
  institution uses the results of these activities
  for improvement.

19
REVIEW OF THE STANDARDS

• Standard Ten Public Disclosure
• 10.14 Through a systematic process of
  periodic review, the institution ensures that its
  print and electronic publications are complete,
  accurate, available, and current. The results of
  the review are used for improvement

20
REVIEW OF THE STANDARDS

• Standard Eleven Integrity
• 11.11 The pursuit of institutional integrity
  is strengthened through the application of
  findings from periodic and episodic assessments
  of the policies and conditions that support the
  achievement of these aims among members of the
  institutional community.

21
FORMAT OF THE REPORT

• Cover page
• Statement on process used for the preparation of
  the report
  
• Institutional Overview changes that have
  occurred at the institution
  
• Response to areas identified as needing special
  emphasis
  
• Narrative which addresses how the institution
  meets the standards pay particular attention to
  the changes and how the institution meets those

22
FORMAT OF THE REPORT

• Goals for the future identifying the goals that
  set the stage for the next visit
  

23
STEERING COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE CABINET

• Members
• Robert V. Antonucci, President
• Michael Fiorentino, Jr., Vice President and
  Provost for Academic Affairs
  
• Sheila Sykes, Vice President for Finance and
  Administration
  
• Jane Coviello, Associate VP of Human
  Resources
  
• Mark Drozdowski, Executive Director of the
  Fitchburg
  
• State College Foundation
• Michael Shanley, Executive Assistant to the
  President
  

24
WORKING COMMITTEE ON THE FIVE YEAR REVIEW DRAFT

• Michael Fiorentino, Jr. , Vice President and
  Provost for Academic Affairs
  
• Shirley Wagner, Associate VPAA
• Elaine Francis, Dean of Education
• Stanley Bucholc, Dean of Student and Academic
  Life
  
• Cathy Canney, Dean of Graduate and Continuing
  Education
  
• Pamela McCafferty, Dean of Enrollment Management
• Terry Carroll, Director of Planning and
  Institutional Research
  
• Melissa Demerest, Assistant Director

25
REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS

• Department Chairs
• ACC
• ACC Sub-committees, as appropriate
• Academic Affairs team
• Executive Cabinet
• Board of Trustees

26
TIMELINE FOR THE NEASC FIVE YEAR REVIEW

• August 2006 Establish Steering Committee
  establish timeline for review
  
• September 2006 Forward the data requests to all
  relevant offices review the three year documents
  and the progress made since that time create
  power point presentation on the review and its
  goals to be shared with a variety of offices
  schedule meetings with key offices that have
  information that is needed for the review set up
  website for the review

27
TIMELINE FOR NEASC FIVE YEAR REVIEW

• October 2006 Meetings with key offices and
  groups on the progress made in special areas and
  emphasis, the achievements to be emphasized in
  the overview of the college, and future plans.
  Meetings within key areas to review the changes
  in the standards and how these will be addressed
  for the future.
• November 2006 Continuation of meetings on the
  changes in the standards. Writing and review of
  key sections by Working Committee on the draft
  and the Steering Committee

28
TIMELINE FOR FIVE YEAR REVIEW

• December 2006 Submission to the ACC for review
  and comment open faculty sessions on Five Year
  Review
  
• January 15, 2007 Five Year Review is submitted
  to NEASC
  

29
AREAS OF EMPHASIS

• Engaging in institutional planning that is
  systematic, broad-based and participatory
  
• The continued development of a governance system
  that supports the accomplishment of the
  institutions mission and purpose
  
• Continued development of the Leadership College
  emphasis
  
• Using the results of assessment of student
  learning for improvement
  
• Systematically strengthening the systems of
  academic advising for students
  

30
Documents for the NEASC Five Year Review

• Strategic plan update
• Technology update
• LAS Program
• Facilities Planning documents
• Assessment Plans
• Comprehensive Academic Plan draft
• Budget documents
• Enrollment Projections

31
Documents for the NEASC Five Year Review

• Program Review documents