Penn State Re-Accredited With Flying Colors

3-28-96
University Park, Pa. -- The Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools has not only reaffirmed Penn State's accreditation, it has submitted an evaluation report that is highly congratulatory in terms of the quality of a Penn State education.

The report made special note of the high levels of student satisfaction. It observed that Penn State students in general are proud of their school and speak authoritatively of the quality of Penn State educational programs. It also noted the overall highly effective management of the University through strategic planning and quality improvement initiatives, and gave Penn State's strategic planning the credit for many of the strides made since the last reaccreditation in 1986.

"We are delighted, of course, at the decision of the commission, but not surprised. Penn State has long been a leader in higher education," said Penn State President Graham B. Spanier. "We took the opportunity of the reaccreditation process to conduct a thoughtful self-study, particularly in terms of the quality of education we offer and of our management practices. The commission's report is compelling testimony that Penn State is an institution that others applaud."

The Middle States evaluation report by faculty and administrators from peer institutions contains a number of commendations, suggestions and a few cautions. Looking at educational quality, the team examined nine critical areas from curriculum reform to the use of technology and outreach education.

On curriculum reform, the report applauded "the many imaginative academic programs," noting that Penn State "is piloting new approaches to the integration of curriculum with research experiences, internships and other out-of-class experiences."

It cited initiatives such as the WISE Institute (Women in Science and Engineering) and CAUSE (the Center for Advanced Undergraduate Studies and Experience, in the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences) program as creative, and also highlighted international initiatives, and the University Scholars Program. The report noted that the University Faculty Senate and other committees and commissions were actively reforming the curriculum and urged timely consideration of those reforms.

The evaluation team also commented on the range of interesting initiatives under way that contribute to the understanding of the teaching and learning process and that offer new methods and approaches for faculty to consider. They urged that the best of these model programs should be made more broadly available to faculty and students.

The team observed that the "faculty hold an undeniably impressive record of research and scholarship" from which the students benefit in the classroom. They found a positive climate for research and a common understanding among faculty and academic administrators about the complementarity of teaching and research, and recommended that the institutional reward system should be reviewed to address the balance of faculty responsibilities for research, teaching and service.

Penn State is on the right track in terms of assessment, the team said, and should continue to emphasize it as a tool in continuous improvement. They especially noted that the survey of nonreturning students, the mid-semester early-warning evaluation report for first-year students, and exit surveys should be continued, and encouraged the University to continue external peer reviews of academic programs.

The University's recent reorganization of recruitment and retention received high marks, and the team recommended that these efforts be continued. Agreeing with the University's own assessment of student advising as an ongoing challenge, the report notes that efforts to address the complexity of curriculum will help ease many of advising-related concerns. They also noted that Penn State has been effective at outreach to nontraditional student populations throughout the Commonwealth for many years, and urged the University to redouble these efforts.

The review team found the array of co-curricular initiatives impressive and lauded the creativity in addressing funding limitations, the concern for students' educational needs and the commitment to include diversity and equity issues in programming. The team also hailed Intercollegiate Athletics as "in many ways a model program," and made special note of the University's academic support of student athletes.

Technology initiatives were also praised, especially the University's efforts to provide Internet access to students and faculty at all locations. The team encouraged continuing the growth in multi-media classrooms and distance-learning infrastructure, but also commented on the problem of directing sufficient resources toward the necessary staff support and future system upgrades.

The accomplishments of the University Libraries also received praise. "The Libraries are nationally known for their early advances in technology, the quality of their on-line information system, the breadth and depth of their collections and the strength of their leadership." The team said that students and faculty reported high regard for the Libraries, and applauded the strong role librarians play in University-wide planning.

In general, the evaluation team found that students at Commonwealth Educational System locations appreciated the small classes and easy faculty contact. They also noted that students at University Park acknowledged some problems typical of large campuses, but "were aware that their problems were heard by faculty and administrators and a number of initiatives were underway to address their concerns."

The management of the University received high marks in several areas, especially in terms of strategic planning, diversity planning and Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI), which, the team said, depends on quality leadership at the top. The team praised Spanier's efforts to reach out to all Penn State locations and Executive Vice President and Provost John A. Brighton's leadership in planning, CQI and the recent transition of presidential leadership.

The team was impressed with the accomplishments of the University Future Committee, and said that this University-wide initiative "was intelligently executed" within tight constraints. The strategy of reallocating resources differentially between administrative functions and academic processes -- thus preserving as much funding as possible for academic programs -- also received high marks.

The team concurred with Penn State's proposed next steps of developing "a more streamlined structure and process," devising "a process that will set University-wide priorities from which individual colleges and administrative units can draw as they determine their priorities and strategies."

This effort is now under way in the form of the University Planning Council and the new strategic planning cycle. The University is urged to keep the lines of communication as open as possible in the planning process and to leave as much of the planning as possible to individual units.

The team also said that CQI, as practiced at Penn State with an emphasis on assessment and communication, has the potential to foster even greater quality in both administrative and academic endeavors, and recommended greater visibility for successful CQI efforts as models for others.

The team also applauded the current review of the Commonwealth Educational System and concurred with the decision to review the interrelationships of all colleges and campuses and review the funding formula, which the team said, now cushions campuses against sudden drops in enrollment but may also result in resource lags in times of sudden enrollment increases.

Penn State received an "A" for its commitment to diversity, noting that while perhaps not at the same high level of accomplishment as in other areas, important gains have been made in increasing the representation of underrepresented groups throughout the University community, and concurred with heightening efforts by implementing diversity strategic plans. The team urged central administration to show strong leadership, including hiring at the senior levels of the administration, and fostering a more focused approach.

The team also praised the practice of having fiscal officers located within colleges and departments with responsibility to the controller.

The 1996 Middle States evaluation report will provide a framework for continuing assessment and for the periodic review report in 2000.

**cr**

Contacts:
Christy Rambeau
(814) 865-7517 (office)
(814 237-9046 (home)
cmr7@psu.edu

Alan Janesch
(814) 865-7517 (office)
(814 867-3621 (home)
axj12@psu.edu