Middle States Self-Study

1. Middle States Self-Study Salisbury University 2003-2006

2. What is a Middle States accreditation? • 10-year interval of self-examination, external review, and commission approval (with a 5 year Periodic Review Report) that an institution meets specified regional standards of quality • Initial approval is accreditation; subsequent renewal is reaccreditation • A requirement for receiving federal funding (student financial aid grants and loans, federal grants, etc.) • In the Middle States region, affirmation of 14 standards of higher education achievement

3. Why accreditation? • The “good housekeeping seal of approval” for proprietary schools, colleges, and universities, primary and secondary school systems • An honest look at the University’s demonstrated strengths and challenges • Institutional renewal—opportunity to renew strengths, assess continuing challenges, and identify new challenges • Consensus recommendations for the next decade

4. What does “Middle States” mean?

5. Regional Commissions of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation • New England • Southern • North Central • Western • Northwest • Middle States--serving New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as the Mid-East, Near-East, Africa, and Europe.

6. Goals of SU’s Self-Study • The Middle States Self-Study provides a forum to conduct a comprehensive review of SU’s suppositions, practices, programs, personnel, policies, and institutional habits. By conducting a multiyear, data-driven and consensus-based study of its own strengths and opportunities for change, Salisbury University will • involve the campus community and constituent communities in an assessment of Salisbury’s mission, educational programs, activities, ongoing processes of planning, resource allocation, and institutional renewal; • provide a framework for continual improvement of Salisbury University’s educational and administrative inclusiveness and effectiveness; • enhance the shared understanding of Salisbury’s central purpose as an educational institution; • create a common vision of where the institution will go in the future; and • provide comprehensive and coherent recommendations for Salisbury University’s next decade (2006-16)—recommendations that have been carefully crafted, assessed, and affirmed by its constituencies.

7. What is the timeline and process for Salisbury? • √ Fall 2003: Steering committee of the self study appointed • √ Spring 2004: Creating the self-study design • Fall 2004: Campus affirmation and Middle States √ approval of the design; √ formation of working groups. Nov 5th—Campus visit by Middle States liaison • Spring 2005: Working groups investigate and write their reports • Summer 2005: First draft of the self-study report • Fall 2005: Completion of report—Campus visit by team chair • February 2006 (3-1/2 days): 10-member team visit • Spring and summer 2006: Commission action (spring and summer 2006) and any campus response

8. Choice of the Self-Study Design • Comprehensive (60-75% of Middle States institutions) • Comprehensive with special emphasis/emphases (13-28%) • Special focus periodic self-study (12%) • After discussion, the steering committee narrowed its options to • comprehensive review • comprehensive review with special emphasis (with diversity, resource allocation, and institutional renewal as contenders for such special emphasis) • Decision: the committee chose • a comprehensive review process in which diversity, resource allocation, and institutional renewal are central components within its working groups—a characteristic example of consensus work that marked the steering committee’s deliberations. • Five working groups that combine the 14 standards & SU’s six values (excellence, student-centeredness, learning, community, civic engagement, diversity)

9. What have we accomplished so far? • The Self-Study Design Document • Five Working Groups with over 75 campus participants • 1. Academic Excellence: Faculty and Curriculum • 2. Student-Centeredness, Mission, and Institutional Identity • 3. Diversity and Globalization • 4. Community Engagement, Governance, and Leadership • 5. Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal • 258 analytical charging questions (38 to 69 per working group) • Approval of the design (7/1/04)—Middle States indicates “the design is overall an excellent one, and it reflects the very active participation of the steering committee and working groups, particularly in the development of thoughtful charge questions.”

10. What will each Working Group do? • assess the University’s current effectiveness in meeting the specific categories and Middle States standards assigned to it; • write a 25-page report (6300 words) plus tables, charts and appendices, responding to its charging questions, submitted to the self-study chair by May 1, 2005; • make a clear set of recommendations for the next decade to address topics the working group considers necessary.

11. Std 1: Mission, Goals, and Objectives Std 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal Std 3: Institutional Resources Std 4: Leadership and Governance Std 5: Administration Std 6: Integrity Std 7: Institutional Assessment Std 8: Student Admissions St. 9: Student Support Services Std 10: Faculty Std 11:Educational Offerings Std 12: General Education Std 13: Related Educational Activities Std 14: Assessment of Student Learning 14 Standards

12. Standard 1:Mission, Goals, and Objectives • The institution’s mission clearly defines its purposes within the context of higher education and explains whom the institution serves and what it intends to accomplish. • The institution’s stated goals and objectives, consistent with the aspirations and expectations of higher education, clearly specify how the institution will fulfill its mission. • The mission, goals, and objectives are developed and recognized by the institution with its members and its governing body and are utilized to develop and shape its programs and practices and to evaluate its effectiveness. (Working Groups 2 and 4)

13. Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal • An institution conducts planning and resource allocation on its mission and utilizes the results of its assessment activities for institutional renewal. • Implementation and subsequent evaluation of the success of the strategic plan and resource allocation support the development and change necessary to improve and to maintain institutional quality. (Working Group 5)

14. Standard 3: Institutional Resources • The human, technical, physical facilities and other resources necessary to achieve an institution’s mission and goals are available and accessible. • In the context of the institution’s mission, the effective and efficient uses of the institution’s resources are analyzed as part of ongoing outcomes assessment. (Working Group 5)

15. Standard 4: Leadership and Governance • The institution’s system of governance clearly defines the roles of institutional constituencies in policy development and decision-making. • The governance structure includes an active governing body with sufficient autonomy to assure institutional integrity and to fulfill its responsibilities of policy and resource development, consistent with the mission of the institution. (Working Group 4)

16. Standard 5: Administration • The institution’s administrative structure and services facilitate learning and research/scholarship, foster the improvement of quality, and support the institution’s recognition and governance. (Working Group 4)

17. Standard 6: Integrity • In the conduct of its programs and activities involving the public and the constituencies it serves, the institution demonstrates adherence to ethical standards and its own stated policies, providing support to academic and intellectual freedom. (Working Groups 1, 2, 4, and 5)

18. Standard 7: Institutional Assessment • The institution has developed and implemented an assessment plan and process that evaluates its overall effectiveness in • achieving its mission and goals; • implementing planning, resource allocation, and institutional renewal processes; • using institutional resources efficiently; • providing leadership and governance; • providing administrative structures and services; • demonstrating institutional integrity; • and assuring that institutional processes and resources support appropriate learning and other outcomes for its students and graduates. (Working Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

19. Standard 8: Student Admissions • The institution seeks to admit students whose interests, goals, and abilities are congruent with its mission. (Working Groups 2 and 3)

20. Standard 9: Student Support Services • The institution provides student services reasonably necessary to enable each student to achieve the institution’s goals for students. (Working Groups 2 and 3)

21. Standard 10: Faculty • The institution’s instructional, research, and service programs are devised, developed, monitored, and supported by qualified professionals. (Working Groups 1 and 3)

22. Standard 11: Educational Offerings • The institution’s educational offerings display academic content, rigor, and coherence that are appropriate to its higher educational mission. • The institution identifies student learning goals and objectives, including knowledge and skills, for its educational offerings. (Working Groups 1 and 3)

23. Standard 12: General Education • The institution’s curricula are designed so that the students acquire and demonstrate college-level proficiency in general education and essential skills, including • oral and written communication, • scientific and quantitative reasoning, • critical analysis and reasoning, • technological competency, • and information literacy (Working Groups 1 and 3)

24. Standard 13: Related Educational Activities • Institutional programs or activities that are characterized by the following meet appropriate standards: • particular content, • focus, • location, • mode of delivery, • or sponsorship (Working Groups 1 and 3)

25. Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning • Assessment of student learning demonstrates • that the institution’s students have the knowledge, skills, and competencies consistent with institutional goals • and that students at graduation have achieved appropriate higher education goals. (Working Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

26. Member Robin Adamopoulos Anita Brown David Buchanan Kerri Jones Bunting Grace Clement Sandra Cohea-Weible Betty Crockett Ron Dotterer Charles Emery John Fields Susan Muller Darrell Newton Bryant Penn Bryan Price Elizabeth Rankin Lesley Schiff Brenda Stanley Rosemary Thomas Ying Wu Ellen Zinner Relationship with the SU Community Graduate student Assistant Professor of Chemistry (alumna) Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Alumni Association (alumna) Associate Professor of Philosophy and Department Chair Liaison from Academic Affairs to the steering committee Associate Vice President for Administration and Finance (alumna) Professor of English and Self-Study Chair Board of Directors Member: Salisbury University Foundation Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs (alumnus) Associate Professor of Physical Education and Faculty Senator Assistant Professor of Communication and Theatre Arts Undergraduate student Director of Institutional Research, Assessment, and Accountability Professor of Nursing Staff Technician in Blackwell Library and MCEA representative Telecommunications Manager and Staff Senate representative Vice President for University Advancement Associate Professor of Economics Assistant to the President Middle States Steering Committee

27. Steering Committee Working Groups

28. Group 1: Academic Excellence: Faculty and Curriculum • Anita Brown, Assistant Professor of Chemistry (alumna) and Ying Wu, Associate Professor of Business (co-chairs). Michael Garner, Professor of Accounting (co-chair, spring 2005) • Sandra Cohea-Weible (Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs) • Thomas Jones (Dean of the Henson School of Science and Technology) • Nancy Michaelson (Associate Professor of Education) • Fran Sistrunk (Instructor of Social Work) • Donald Spickler (Assistant Professor of Math and Computer Sciences) • Tony Whall (Director of the Honors Program and Professor of English) • Arlene White (Associate Professor of Modern Languages and General Education Coordinator) • an additional staff member • undergraduate student

29. Group 2: Student-Centeredness, Mission, and Institutional Identity • Byron Hughes Area Director, Housing & Resident Life (alumnus) and Brenda Stanley, Telecommunications Manager (alumna) & Staff Senate rep (co-chairs) • Robin Adamopoulos (graduate student) • Jennifer Berkman (Director of Student Health Services) • David Gutoskey (Assistant Director of Housing/Residence Life) • Jason Jacoski (undergraduate student) • Kathryn Kalmanson (Head Reference Librarian) • Timothy O’Rourke (Dean of the Fulton School of Liberal Arts) • Bryant Penn (undergraduate student) • Laura Thorpe (Director of Admissions) • Ellen Zinner (Assistant to the President) • 4 faculty, one from each school

30. Group 3: Diversity and Globalization • Grace Clement, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Department Chair, and Darrell Newton, Assistant Professor of Communication and Theatre Arts (co-chairs) • Marvin Ames (Buildings and Grounds, MCEA representative) • Alice Bahr (Dean of Libraries and Instructional Resources) • Carolyn Bowden (Associate Professor of Education) • Kevin Carreathers (Assistant to the VP of Academic Affairs for Institutional Diversity) • James Forte (Assistant Professor of Social Work) • Robert Hallworth, Director of International Education • Agata Liszkowska (Co-ordinator of International Student Services) • Anjali Panday (Associate Professor of English) • Jing Quan (Assistant Professor of Information and Decision Sciences) • Gerald St. Martin (Professor of Modern Languages) • Rosemary Thomas (Vice President for University Advancement) • Janine Vienna (M.B.A. Director) • Vaughan White (Director of Multiethnic Student Services) • Candace Wimberly (undergraduate student, president of NAACP)

31. Group 4: Community Engagement, Governance, and Leadership • John Fields, Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs (alumnus) and Susan Muller, Associate Professor of Physical Education (alumna) and Faculty Senator (co-chairs) • Robin Bowen (Campus Recreation) • Kerrie Jones Bunting (Alumni Association board member and alumna) • Charles Emery (Salisbury University Foundation board member) • Bill Folger (Assistant Professor of Music) • Francis Kane (Co-Director Public Affairs and Civic Engagement Institute and Professor of Philosophy) • Dennis Pataniczek (Dean of the Seidel School of Education and Professional Studies) • David Parker (Professor of Math and Computer Science) • James Phillips (Chief, University Police) • Lesley Schiff (Technician in Blackwell Library and MCEA representative) • George Whitehead (Professor of Psychology) • undergraduate student

32. Group 5: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal • Betty Crockett, Associate Vice President for Administration and Finance(alumna) and Elizabeth Rankin (Professor of Nursing) (co-chair spring and fall 2004). Robert Tardiff Professor of Mathematics (co-chair, spring 2005-on) • John Bing (Professor of Education) • David Buchanan (Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs) • Debra Clark (Executive Administrative Assistant, Seidel School of Education and Professional Studies) • Wayne Decker (Professor of Business Administration) • Elizabeth Emmert (Assistant Professor of Biology) • Lisa Gray (Assistant Director of Book Rack) • Bryan Horikami (Advising Co-ordinator, Fulton School of Liberal Arts) • Kevin Mann (Director of Physical Plant/Building Trades) • Willie Moore (Dean of the Perdue School of Business) • Kim Nechay (Assistant Director, SU Foundation) • Bryan Price (Director of Institutional Assessment, Research and Accountability) • Melissa Thomas (Instructional Designer for Teaching & Learning Network; Staff Senate chair) • Undergraduate student

33. For continually updated information • Or to read more about the Middle States self-study and to find Middle States publications • Check the Salisbury University Middle States website at http://www.salisbury.edu/iara/Accreditation/Welcome.htm