ViewPointAcademic
newsLetter of the viCe President, aCademiC, simon fraser university
thursday november 4, 2010
Vp-aCademiC meSSage
accreditation
will have world
thinking of sFU
GREG EHLERS
pLaNNING
The FUTUre,
assessING
The preseNT
Jon Driver wants to make one thing crystal clear about SFU’s
bid to receive institutional accreditation from the U.S.-based
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities:
“There’s a common misconception that working with an accreditation commission in the United States is going to impose
American requirements on this university—and that’s not the
case,” says SFU’s VP-Academic, who is sponsoring the initiative.
“The assessment process is designed to see, firstly, how well
we are meeting the university’s own established mission and
goals.
“And secondly, it’s designed to ensure that we have processes
in place to meet a range of standards that are widely accepted
as appropriate to universities. This, for example, would include a
governance system in which there is appropriate participation by
different groups on campus. It would include academic freedom.
It would include the assessment of teaching activity, and so on.
“We’re going to be measuring ourselves against a set of best
practices as part of a process for evaluating the overall quality of
the university. But we decide on the core purposes and goals of
our university, and we will use the accreditation process to see
how well we are performing.”
Driver notes that the university went through a consultation
process more than ten years ago that resulted in a statement of
values and commitments.
“More recently,” he adds, “we’ve also been through two very
important planning processes, one for the academic plan and
another for the research plan, which have resulted in some fairly
clear statements about where we’re headed.
“In addition, the board of governors requires the president, on
an annual basis, to set out his agenda for the university.
“So we’ve been able to develop a planning framework from the
university’s overall mission, values and commitments, the president’s agenda and the two major pieces of recent planning.”
Being accredited will improve processes and simplify relationships with U.S. bodies, says Driver. Accreditation may also attract
American students, as well as other international students seeking a North American education.
“A benefit to our students and alumni would be the recognition of SFU qualifications as being equivalent to U.S. accredited
institutions should they seek employment in the U.S.”
Driver says most SFU community members won’t be directly
affected by accreditation because the assessment process
measures the entire institution rather than individual faculties,
programs or departments.
But he says one area where many people will see a fairly direct
impact is in the standards the NWCCU includes for measuring
the outcomes of our academic programs, “which SFU doesn’t do
consistently,” says Driver.
“It’s possible we’ll see greater attention being paid to what
each program expects of its students once they’ve completed
their program, such as demonstrated understanding of their
discipline’s key concepts and methods.
“Or we could be looking for evidence of more skills-based
outcomes, such as a student’s capacity for critical thinking and
writing, or solving certain kinds of problems.”
SFN-SustainabilityInsert.indd 1
Welcome to the first issue of ViewPointAcademic, a newsletter
produced by the office of the Vice President Academic (VPA) to
keep members of the Simon Fraser University community abreast
of current and future VPA initiatives.
This issue focuses on two major VPA projects—the 2010-13
academic plan and the accreditation project. Both will have a
significant impact on the university and its stakeholders in the
years ahead.
SFU is in the midst of applying for institutional accreditation
with the U.S.-based Northwest Commission on Colleges and
Universities (NWCCU), a certification process for which there is no
equivalent in Canada.
The process is focused on SFU’s mission fulfillment, with an
emphasis on how all its organizational units contribute collectively
to the core themes of the university’s mission, rather than looking
at individual units separately. The first stage of the process will
result in a five-chapter self-study being submitted to the NWCCU
in April 2011.
An evaluation team will visit SFU in fall 2011 to assess how the
university applies its resources and capacities toward mission fulfillment, as indicated in the self-study document. While here, the
team will meet with senior administrators and host open forums
for faculty, staff, students and other community members at all
three campuses in Burnaby, Vancouver and Surrey.
To help evaluate whether post-secondary institutions are achieving their mission, the NWCCU requires them to select several core
themes representing different components of their mission. SFU
has identified four core themes that closely align with themes in
the academic plan: Teaching and Learning, Research, Student
Experience and Success, and Community and Citizenship.
To facilitate the university-wide accreditation process, and to
help the 75-per-cent of university units that fall within his portfolio
implement the academic plan, VPA Jon Driver struck five teams
last summer –one for each self-study theme plus a fifth, Financial
Sustainability and Institutional Strength team. The fifth team’s
work will be interwoven into the other four teams’ work on both the
accreditation project and the academic plan.
Among other things in this issue, ViewPointAcademic introduces
you to the five theme teams, comprising some of the university’s
brightest and most experienced academics and administrators, as
they begin their labours in earnest.
accreDITaTIoN BY The NUmBers
4 reasoNs For accreDITaTIoN
y To receive an independent assessment of the institution as a
whole, not just individual programs, disciplines or departments.
y To make it easier to compare and share best practices with
other institutions worldwide.
y To generate greater international recognition and recruitment.
y To simplify relations with U.S. counterparts in matters such as
scholarships, grants and athletics.
3 accreDITaTIoN proJecT oBJecTIVes
y Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of SFU in relation to the
five NWCCU Standards.
y Develop a self-study report for submission to NWCCU.
y Coordinate the NWCCU evaluation site visit.
4 core Themes* (esseNTIaL eLemeNTs oF
sFU’s pUrpose/mIssIoN)
y
y
y
y
Teaching and Learning (Theme lead: Sarah Dench).
Research (Wade Parkhouse).
Student Experience and Success (Tim Rahilly).
Community and Citizenship (Joanne Curry).
*Mapped to SFU’s planning framework and 3-yr academic plan
5 NWccU sTaNDarDs coVereD IN sFU’s
seLF-sTUDY reporT
y Mission, core themes and expectations (SFU’s vision).
y Resources and capacity (SFU’s means and ability to achieve its
vision).
y Institutional planning (the university’s planning procedures).
y Core theme planning, assessment and improvement (how SFU
measures success).
y Mission fulfillment, adaptation and sustainability (how the
university responds to change).
5 prImarY core-Theme Team TasKs
y Define your core theme (i.e., clarify what SFU means when it
refers to your core theme).
y Make an assessment of how well SFU is achieving the theme’s
goals and objectives using the indicators identified in the
academic plan, the strategic research plan and the university
planning framework as well as any other qualitative or
quantitative measures.
y Provide a rationale for why particular measures (quantitative or
qualitative) are appropriate.
y Explain the reasons for arriving at your assessment.
y Using the assessment reach a conclusion about whether and
to what degree SFU is fulfilling its mission as it pertains to your
Core Theme.
3 secoNDarY core-Theme Team TasKs
y Suggest improvements.
y Explain how SFU could improve its performance for this core
theme. (Comment on the appropriateness and value of the
goals and objectives, the effectiveness and efficiency of the
strategies employed, and the validity and reliability of the
indicators identified in the current planning documents. Suggest
alternatives where necessary.)
y Describe what you learned from carrying out this initial process
and how those lessons can be incorporated in future planning
and assessment processes.
10-11-03 2:33 PM
2
simon fraser university news y ViewPointAcademic y Thursday november 4, 2010
supplement
Teaching and Learning
Accreditation
(L To R) Sarah Dench, John Craig, Kate Ross and Paul Budra. (Missing: George Agnes.)
the role of graduate students in the research
enterprise and also our efforts in promoting
research in our undergraduate curriculum.”
The primary research goal of the academic
plan is to support SFU’s 2010-2015 strategic
research plan “which is why our academic
plan themes are taken directly from it,” says
Parkhouse.
His team’s immediate priority for the
accreditation process is to identify the overarching research-related goals and outcomes
SFU wants to achieve and then determine
whether or not the university is meeting them.
To do that, the group will sort through a
vast array of indicators that have already
Student Experience
and Success
Supporting Plans
SFU’s mission
Research
Research theme-team leader Wade
Parkhouse is unequivocal about his group’s
approach to both the academic plan and the
accreditation self-study.
“We have two objectives,” says the graduate studies dean, whose teammates include
associate VP-research Norbert Haunerland,
sociology/anthropology and gerontology
professor, Barbara Mitchell, and entomology associate professor and animal care
committee chair, Carl Lowenberger.
“One is to assess the university’s research
enterprise and our successes, goals and
aspirations within the mandate of the strategic research plan. The other is to look at
Underlying Theme
Community and
Citizenship
Financial
Sustainability and
Institutional Strength
Core Themes
(L to R) Nancy Johnston, Tim Rahilly and Kate Ross. (Missing: Bill Radford, William
Lindsay, Kris Magnusson, Scott Timcke and Paige Mackenzie.)
Team lead Joanne Curry is so enthused
about her Community and Citizenship theme
team’s work on the accreditation project and
the 2010-13 academic plan, she could write
a book on it.
In fact, the Surrey campus executive
director, who has just begun a doctorate in
business administration, will probably do
exactly that a few years from now when she
writes her thesis.
“I would have been interested in being a
member of this committee just because of
my practical experience and role at SFU Surrey,” says Curry.
(L to R) Bill Krane, Jacy Lee and Anita Stepan.
SFN-SustainabilityInsert.indd 2
A work in progress: That’s how team leader
Sarah Dench, SFU’s director of university
curriculum and institutional liaison, describes her
Teaching and Learning theme team’s approach
so far to implementing the academic plan and
shepherding the accreditation process.
Dench’s team includes graduate studies associate dean and chemistry professor, George
Agnes; arts and social sciences associate dean
and English professor, Paul Budra; registrar Kate
Ross, who’s also on the Student Experience and
Success team; and arts and social sciences dean
and history professor, John Craig.
“We were given a draft of the core theme
document with some tentative objectives and
indicators and the first thing we did was revise it
been collected, extracting much of the information from the academic plan, the strategic
research plan and the university planning
framework.
From there, the team will select the
indicators that are most appropriate for the
accreditation document. “Not necessarily
the ones that make us look good, but the
ones that give us a broader picture of where
we’re going and will help us decide our future
directions,” says Parkhouse.
At the end of the process, Parkhouse says
he would like to see a realistic assessment
of where the university is and where it wants
to be down the road in terms of “embed-
The Student Experience and Success theme team is
the only team that includes student representatives—
which is both an opportunity and a challenge, says
team lead Tim Rahilly, associate VP-students and
international.
“One of the great things about it,” says Rahilly, “is
the students will keep us jaded administrators honest. Their experience of the university is very different
than ours. So making sure their voices are heard is
an essential part of my role in chairing our group.”
On the other hand, he says, “the students are
much more interested in the broader conversation
represented in the academic plan than they are
about accreditation.”
“So we’ve selected a subgroup to work on accredi-
“But I’m so passionate about the topic, I
want to do my thesis in this area as well.”
Curry’s team members include environment faculty dean John Pierce, continuing
studies dean Helen Wussow, geographer
Sean Markey, an assistant professor with
Surrey’s Explorations in Arts and Social
Sciences program, and associate education
professor David Zandvliet.
“We’re fortunate to have this expertise
around the table,” says Curry. “My teammates are all very dedicated to community
engagement and citizenship so this particular
theme is really important to them.”
Like the other theme teams, Curry’s group
is currently more focused on carrying out
their core-theme assessment for the accreditation self-study due next spring. But
she says their accreditation and academic
planning tasks are closely integrated.
The group is assessing the university’s efforts to link all three campuses more closely
to their communities by making its learning opportunities, community service and
research results more accessible.
Those efforts could include closer ties with
Aboriginal and immigrant communities, more
strategically focused non-credit programs,
The academic plan’s fifth theme, Financial Sustainability and Institutional Strength, is the only
one that isn’t also an accreditation theme.
But the university’s financial health is critical
to both initiatives, says the theme’s team leader,
associate VP-academic Bill Krane.
“Our work cuts across all of the other teams and
the work they’re doing,” says Krane, whose teammates include institutional research and planning
director, Jacy Lee, and financial and budget
administration director, Anita Stepan.
“Our job is to assess the university’s financial
viability and suggest changes to academic operations,” adds Lee.
“It provides the underpinnings for a lot of the
10-11-03 2:33 PM
supplement
simon fraser university news y ViewPointAcademic y Thursday november 4, 2010
recommendation
recommendation
(L to R) David Zandvliet, Helen Wussow, research assistant Joanne Provencal, Sean Markey
and Joanne Curry. (Missing: John Pierce.)
The proposed new system would tie budget
levels directly to the tuition dollars faculties
generate.
The university will also direct part of its provincial government grant monies directly to faculties
and support areas and use success in Tri-Council
competition as a determinant in divvying out
federal government “indirect cost” money directly
to the faculties.
Krane’s group is also looking at the ongoing
reorganization of Continuing Studies and
evaluating faculty revenue-sharing programs and
university revenue-generating enterprises.
As well, it is weighing the pros and cons of
admitting more international students and finding
better ways to manage enrollments.
Many of the budgetary changes could happen
this fiscal year but others could take several
years to implement.
“A lot of the things we’re doing will have a direct
positive effect on the quality of the student
experience,” says Krane, “by improving our ability
to support world-class research, provide exciting
degree opportunities and finance innovative
teaching and learning.”
Theme team process
out who we are and what we want to be. And
articulating these things in the form of goals and
outcomes gives us a chance to say, ‘yes, I like
this’ or ‘no, I don’t like this, and we should be
going in a different direction.’”
Plus, he says, both projects “offer a real
chance for people from different constituencies
to engage on the topic. We’ve got a dean on our
team, we’ve got students on our team, and we
have administrators on our team.
“And, you know, it’s not always the case that
we have an opportunity to put our heads together
with our colleagues who are in a different part of
the university, to talk about something we have in
common.”
Recommendations & Implementation Support
SFN-SustainabilityInsert.indd 3
Wade Parkhouse
recommendation
Barbara Mitchell
recommendation
retention rates, developing a more navigable
curriculum and improving course access, and
diversifying the university’s pedagogy.
For the accreditation project, they’re employing
a number of indicators to assess student experience and success, including surveys of various
aspects of campus and academic life and SFU
compiled retention and completion data. They will
also analyze National Survey of Student Engagement and participation levels in initiatives such
as Residence Life, Work Integrated Learning, SFU
International and Recreation and Athletics.
Rahilly sees both the self-study and the
academic plan as opportunities for transparency.
“We often look at our identity and try to figure
local and global community work and learning opportunities
for students
and closer links with alumni.
“We know what our goals and objectives are,” says Curry.
“Our biggest challenge is figuring out how to accurately
assess our performance in achieving them.”
But she adds, “What’s important about the accreditation
process is that it helps to ensure you have the planning and
measurement processes in place to answer questions like,
what are you trying to do? How are you trying to do it? And
how will you know if you’ve achieved it?
“This process gives us a great opportunity to better articulate SFU’s goals and objectives and to assess our methods
for measuring outcomes in all our core theme areas.”
other things that happen around our structure.”
Krane’s team has a long list of priorities beginning with simplifying SFU’s overly complicated
graduate tuitions structure and internal support
programs to better meet graduate student needs.
But arguably its most far-reaching priority is to
work with the finance department and faculty administrators to replace SFU’s incrementally based
budgetary system with a performance-based
system that instills greater operational planning
transparency and accountability.
With the current system “You get what you had
before or you take a cut and then new monies are
added in based on what’s available. People really
feel like they’re getting jerked in two directions.”
Carl Lowenberger
recommendation
tation, which the students don’t have the necessary time for anyway, and we’ll share the results
and get input from everyone.”
Rahilly’s teammates include registrar Kate
Ross, student affairs executive director, Nancy
Johnston, internationalization director Bill
Radford, Office for Aboriginal Peoples director,
William Lindsay, and education dean Kris Magnusson. The two student members are communications PhD student Scott Timcke and Paige
Mackenzie who is completing a BA with a major
in international studies.
For the academic plan, the team is focused
on creating multiple admission routes to attract
a more diverse student body, increasing student
Norbert Haunerland
assessment
ding more research into our undergraduate and graduate
populations” and identifying potential barriers.
“The accreditation document is asking us to take a look
at ourselves more critically and to make sure we have ways
of assessing performance so we can go back and maybe
look at things in ways we possibly haven’t done before,”
says Parkhouse.
“Clearly, we are a research-intensive institution and we
want to both identify and improve the quality and amount
of the scholarly output of our researchers in whatever ways
we can.
“But we also want to assess whether or not the institution is developing the policies and procedures for improving in all areas of scholarship related to our research and
identify the issues that are preventing us from improving.”
superior quantitative reasoning skills and a
wider breadth of knowledge.
The accreditation process will “sharpen our
thinking about a lot of things we do and probably
take for granted,” says Dench.
“There are many ways we collect data about
what students think of SFU, but there are other
things we perhaps don’t collect enough data on,
which it would be helpful to know if we’re going
to improve.
“We are, after all, a research institution. We
shouldn’t exempt ourselves from that sort of
analysis.”
assessment
increasing student exposure to research, particularly at the undergraduate level.
The work ties in nicely with the accreditation
process, which she aptly characterizes as “taking
a snapshot of where we are in the university right
now and assessing with some hard and fast metrics how we’re doing on certain key performance
indicators.”
That assessment will portray the university’s
efforts to:
❙❙ Offer a wide spectrum of quality programs.
❙❙ Provide programs in areas of strength and
strategic importance.
❙❙ Offer high-quality undergraduate and graduate
teaching.
❙❙ Graduate students who are better writers with
assessment
into something we could stand behind and really
work well from.”
Like the others, Dench’s team was already
helping faculties implement the academic plan
when they were handed the accreditation selfstudy project.
But she says the two tasks have been organized to complement each other so when the selfstudy is complete, “we will have a platform from
which we can then continue the work prescribed
in the academic plan.”
For the academic plan, Dench’s team is
assessing SFU’s progress in developing new
programs in areas such as the environment and
health sciences, reviewing curriculum for learning
outcomes and faculty research linkages, and
assessment
Overall Assessment of Mission Fulfillment
10-11-03 2:33 PM
4
simon fraser university news y ViewPointAcAdemic y thursday november 4, 2010
Supplement
Great expectations
accreDITaTIoN
Q&A
WHY IS ACCREDITATION IMPORTANT?
Accreditation conveys to the public that an institution has met the highest
standards; it assures prospective students both at home and abroad that its
programs and courses are of the highest quality and value.
WHY IS SFU SEEKING ACCREDITATION—AND WHY IN THE U.S.?
SFU is seeking U.S. accreditation because Canada has no equivalent national
or regional post-secondary accreditation process.
The university has several major reasons for wanting to be accredited:
y Accreditation is a globally recognized stamp of quality assurance, one
that is increasingly important to international students seeking a North
American education, particularly in B.C. where recent private postsecondary school failures have caused a great deal of negative publicity
abroad.
y Accreditation will help SFU attract the very best international students.
y Accreditation goals and outcomes match up well with SFU’s academic
planning objectives and its larger strategic-planning efforts.
y Accreditation adheres the university to a widely recognized set of best
practices and a process of continuous improvement that will enhance
academic quality, spark curriculum reform, increase accountability and
improve institutional assessment and evaluation.
y International accreditation will enhance the value of an SFU degree for
alumni abroad.
y Accreditation will simplify SFU relationships with U.S. institutions and
agencies.
WHAT IS THE NWCCU?
The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities is an independent,
non-profit membership organization recognized by the U.S. Department
of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. It is the
regional authority on the educational quality and institutional effectiveness of
post-secondary institutions in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah,
Washington and now British Columbia. The commission oversees regional
accreditation for 163 institutions. Its decision-making body consists of as
many as 26 commissioners.
HOW LONG WILL ACCREDITATION TAKE?
The full accreditation process will take between five and seven years to
complete. SFU is currently classified as an “applicant”. Once SFU completes
a self-study detailing how its policies, procedures and practices meet NWCCU
prescribed standards and hosts a site visit from an evaluation committee of
senior administrator and academic peers from U.S. institutions, it will receive
“candidate” status. During the “candidacy” period, which typically lasts three
years, SFU will need to submit annual reports to the NWCCU and host further
site visits from the evaluation committee every 18 months. Thereafter, if all
goes well, SFU will be “accredited”. To maintain its accreditation status SFU
must complete a full reaccreditation every seven years with regular reporting
and site visit evaluations.
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?
Based on the NWCCU’s current figures, SFU’s annual dues would be U.S.
$13,600 once it is accredited. Until it becomes accredited, SFU will pay U.S.
$22,000 annually, plus costs associated with evaluation committee site
visits, self-study preparation and project management. The university will use
Fraser International College revenues to pay for all costs incurred to obtain
accreditation.
WHERE CAN I LEARN MORE?
y Accreditation at SFU: www.sfu.ca/vpacademic/Academic_Planning/
Accreditation/
y Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities accreditation
standards: www.nwccu.org/Standards%20Review/Pages/
RevisedStandards.htm
y An example of a recent self-study report: University of Alaska Anchorage
www.uaa.alaska.edu/accreditation/
SFN-SustainabilityInsert.indd 4
STUART COLCLEUGH
WHAT IS ACCREDITATION?
Accreditation is a voluntary, systematic review of an institution by an
internationally recognized independent body of post-secondary professionals
to assure high standards for performance, integrity and quality and to
encourage continuous improvement. For example, among other things, the
NWCUU will examine SFU’s governance and administration, academic
programs, financial condition, admissions and student services, resources,
student academic achievement and organizational effectiveness.
THE ACCREDITATION TEAM: (Clockwise from left) Michelle Hunt, director of planning and analysis (finance) and self-study
financial author; Lynda Erickson, political science professor emeritus and self-study academic author; Glynn Nicholls,
director of academic planning and budgeting and accreditation project manager; Louise Paquette, accreditation project
program assistant, KC Bell director of special projects and primary self-study author.
The work of each theme team is twofold: supporting
the implementation of the goals set out in the 2010-13
academic plan and assisting the accreditation project team
to complete the university’s self-study by carrying out the
core theme assessment required for the NWCCU.
These activities are highly integrated with one another
and are being approached as a single task broken into two
pieces. But because the accreditation self-study is both
compulsory and driven by a shorter deadline—March 15,
2011—it has top priority until it is completed.
CORE THEMES VS. ACADEMIC THEMES
Although the descriptions of the accreditation core themes
and the academic themes are a little different, they have a
very similar focus. But because the core themes cut across
all university faculties and jurisdictions they are necessarily
broader than the themes set out in the academic plan.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SFU CORE THEMES FOR ACCREDITATION
SFU has identified four core themes that express the heart
of its mission. Each core theme is reflected in the academic
plan, and the work of the theme teams in preparing for and
carrying out the assessment of each theme will include
considering how their assessment can be used to help
implement the plan.
The fifth academic theme, Financial Sustainability and
Institutional Strength, enables SFU to fulfill its mission and,
although not a core theme for accreditation purpose, must
be woven through our accounts of the other four.
SFU’s performance in achieving its core themes will be
the basis for assessing the university’s success in achieving
its mission. So the accreditation self-study must carry out
that assessment by:
y Identifying institutional goals, strategies and indicators
for each core theme
y Carrying out an assessment of our performance based on
our self-identified criteria
y Reaching an overall conclusion about the degree to which
we are fulfilling our mission.
Chapter 1 of the self-study articulates the goals, strategies and indicators SFU has identified, as well as its
reasons for believing them to be “meaningful, assessable
and verifiable”. These were provided to each theme team by
the accreditation team. Chapter 4 gives a detailed account
of the university’s assessment process, what it has learned
in the process, and whether and to what degree it is fulfilling its mission and this is where the theme teams’ assessments will be included.
The teams’ core theme assessments must be complete
by March 15, with the self-study finished by April 30 so
efficiency in producing the assessments will be critical to
achieving a quick turnaround. As a result, the teams are
working closely with the accreditation team—Glynn Nichols,
KC Bell, Lynda Erickson, Michelle Hunt and Louise Paquette—to ensure each teams’ assessments are incorporated smoothly into the self-study document and resemble
the format of the other core theme teams. For example, the
data sets will, wherever possible, cover the same periods of
time, with the data coming from Institutional Research and
Plannning unless it is externally supplied.
THREE-YEAR ACADEMIC PLAN TASK
The academic plan identifies five themes, each with
a number of associated goals, as well as number of
supporting objectives and actions. As the plan runs through
2013, VP-academic Jon Driver has asked each theme
team’s commitment to the end of the planning horizon.
The teams will decide how to approach their theme
responsibilities, but they will communicate regularly with
the VPA on significant actions they believe are necessary to
implement the plan. The teams will submit regular reports
at the deans’ council to keep senior administrators abreast
of progress.
The teams’ specific tasks include:
y Communicating theme goals clearly, to make sure those
concerned clearly understand the intended focus of the
implementation and how it is to be conducted.
y Drafting policy/papers/procedures to guide change where
it is required
y Integrating what the teams learn from the accreditation
assessment process to inform and improve the
implementation of the academic plan goals
y Identifying possible barriers and potential solutions to
achieving the goals
y Keeping the theme and its associated goal on the
agendas of those involved in the process.
y Being recognized as “change agents”, “champions” and
advisors with expertise in each theme.
aCCreditation mileStoneS
COMPLETE THE SELF STUDY REPORT
April 2011
SITE VISIT TO SFU BY NWCCU
October 2011
APPROVAL BY BOARD OF GOVERNORS
June-July 2011
NWCCU BOARD DECISION TO
ACCEPT SFU AS A ‘CANDIDATE’
January 2012
SUBMISSION TO NWCCU
August 2011
10-11-03 2:33 PM