Syracuse University
advertisement
Syracuse University Syracuse, NY Self-study Design Provided to: Middle States Commission on Higher Education May 2006 Syracuse University Self-study Design Middle States Commission on Higher Education May 2006 Table of Contents I. Introduction.................................................................................. 1 II. Nature, Scope, and Intended Outcomes of the Self-study............... 5 III. Structure of the Steering Committee and Study Groups ................ 6 IV. Charges to the Study Groups and Guidelines for Their Reports ..... 8 V. Inventory of Support Documents ................................................. 11 VI. Organization of Self-study Report ................................................ 14 VI. Sample Documentation Roadmap................................................ 14 VII. Editorial Style and Format .......................................................... 16 VIII. Timetable .................................................................................... 17 IX. Profile of the Evaluation Team ..................................................... 18 Syracuse University Self-study Design Middle States Commission on Higher Education May 2006 I. INTRODUCTION Institutional Profile Syracuse University, chartered in 1870, is a private research university located in central New York. The University is classified as a Carnegie research university (high research activity). The University has twelve schools and colleges: School of Architecture College of Arts and Sciences School of Education L.C. Smith College of Engineering and Computer Science College of Human Services and Health Professions School of Information Studies College of Law (graduate only) Martin J. Whitman School of Management Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs (graduate only) S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications University College College of Visual and Performing Arts Syracuse University offers students a curriculum that integrates theory with practice, while blending the liberal arts and professional studies. Our student body reflects a diverse community in which all 1 50 states and more than 85 foreign countries are represented. International students comprise 9 percent of the total student population of 18,734. Our total student enrollment reflects 12,905 full- and part-time undergraduate students and 5,829 full- and part-time graduate and law students. Women comprise 56 percent of the full-time undergraduate student population, men 44 percent. In 2005, the full-time undergraduate total of 12,128 students included 17 percent African American, Asian American, Native American, and Latino students. Students from underrepresented groups comprise 24 percent of the 2005 incoming class. The University employs 879 full-time faculty and 474 part-time and adjunct faculty, totaling 1,037 full-time equivalents. Over 65% of the faculty are tenured, above the average of 60% for doctoral level institutions. University Governance Syracuse University is governed by its Board of Trustees, which has legal responsibility for the University’s physical and financial assets. The Board has five standing committees (executive, audit, budget, investment and endowment, and facilities) and four advisory committees (academic affairs, administrative operations, student affairs, and institutional advancement). The Board appointed Chancellor Nancy Cantor to implement its policies and to administer the University. In addition to the Chancellor, the senior officers are Deborah Freund, Vice Chancellor and Provost; Daryl Gross, Director, Department of 2 Athletics; Louis Marcoccia, Senior Vice President for Business, Finance, and Administrative Services; Thomas Walsh, Senior Vice President for Institutional Advancement; Eleanor Ware, Senior Vice President for Human Services and Government Relations; and Barry Wells, Senior Vice President and Dean of Student Affairs. These senior officers are joined on the Chancellor’s Cabinet by the following individuals: Tom Evans, University Counsel; Paul Gandel, Chief Information Officer; Trudy Morritz, Assistant Chancellor; Eric Spina, Dean, L.C. Smith College of Engineering and Computer Science (representing the academic deans); Kalpana Srinivas, Assistant Chancellor; Jo Thomas, Associate Chancellor; Suzanne Thorin, University Librarian and Dean of Libraries; and Ben Ware, Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School. The academic governing body of the University, made up of faculty, staff, and students, is the University Senate. The majority of its work is done in the following standing committees, which normally report to the full Senate once a year: Agenda; Academic Affairs; Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Professional Ethics; Administrative Operations; Appointment and Promotions; Athletic Policy; Budget and Fiscal Affairs; Computing Services; Curricula; Diversity; Honorary Degrees; Instruction; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Concerns; Library; Research; Services to the Faculty and Staff; Student Life; and Women’s Concerns. 3 Finally, faculty, staff, and students participate in various levels of governance through university-wide, school/college, or department committees, task forces, or groups. Mission and Vision Syracuse University’s current mission of promoting learning through teaching, research, scholarship, creative accomplishment, and service was adopted in 1992. During the subsequent twelve years, our vision was articulated as striving to become the leading student-centered research university and was implemented through the Academic Plan announced by Vice Chancellor and Provost Freund in 2001. Although we no longer use the language of student-centered research university and the Academic Plan is no longer our blueprint, the principles underlying the vision continue and the strides we made under the Academic Plan provide the strong foundation that will enable us to realize our current vision. Our current vision, Scholarship in Action: Building the Creative Campus, has three strands: faculty excellence and scholarly distinction, access for enterprising students, and engagement with the world. Supporting this vision is the shift to a Responsibility Center Management (RCM) budget system, which is intended to provide more clarity about our fiscal position, create greater flexibility in resource allocation, and encourage entrepreneurship. 4 II. NATURE, SCOPE, AND INTENDED OUTCOMES OF THE SELF-STUDY The arrival of our new Chancellor in July 2004, the subsequent articulation of a new vision for the University, and the adoption of a new budget system combine to make this a most opportune time for our decennial Middle States self-study. The selected-topics model for self-study provides an excellent opportunity to involve faculty, staff, students, and community members in the process of developing a more sophisticated understanding of the vision as it applies to faculty and graduate education and to undergraduate education. We have, for our research questions, woven the three strands of our vision in a somewhat different pattern. So, for example, because we expect that engagement with the world plays out differently for faculty and graduate students than it does for undergraduates, we will study engagement in those contexts rather than as a separate topic. As we educate ourselves and others about who we are and what we aspire to become, we will take stock, think creatively about the ways in which we could realize our vision, and craft as a community a set of concrete recommendations to help us achieve that vision. In addition, the self-study will occur during the first year of the new budget system implementation, allowing us to focus on methods to measure the success of the new system in supporting the achievement of our vision. Finally, the timing of the self-study process will allow us to leverage the important work already underway in task forces that are examining and developing 5 recommendations on issues such as institutional climate, academic integrity, the creation of a Summer University, and the implementation of our newly created Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. III. STRUCTURE OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE AND STUDY GROUPS Steering Committee In February 2006 the University established a 31-person self-study Steering Committee consisting of faculty, staff, and students, and City of Syracuse community members. The Steering Committee is responsible for developing the self-study design communicating the goals of the self-study and encouraging broad participation in the self-study process overseeing and coordinating the work of the Study Groups reviewing the road map for the documentation review reviewing draft reports written by the Study Groups molding the recommendations of the Study Groups into a coherent statement of University priorities and a set of recommendations for University action gathering feedback on the self-study draft writing the final draft of the self-study report hosting the evaluation visit Chairing the Steering Committee is Sandra Hurd, Associate Provost and Professor of Law and Public Policy. She is joined on the committee by Kal Alston, Associate Provost and Professor, School of Education and College of Arts and Sciences (Study Group Chair) Bruce Bongarten, Provost and Vice President, SUNY-ESF 6 Arthur Brooks, Associate Professor, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Carol Charles, Managing Director, Community Folk Art Center Derrick Cogburn, Assistant Professor, School of Information Studies Kiana Cornish, Director of University Affairs, Student Association Andria Costello Staniec, Associate Professor, L.C. Smith College of Engineering and Computer Science Ravi Dharwadkar, Associate Professor, Martin J. Whitman School of Management Alejandro Garcia, Professor, College of Human Services and Health Professions Jackie Grace, Vice Principal, Hughes Magnet School, Syracuse City School District Christine Himes, Professor, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs (Study Group Chair) John Hogan, Director, Office of Budget and Planning Sharon Jack-Williams, Executive Director, Dunbar Association Ryan Kelly, Chief of Staff, Student Association Jerry Mager, Professor, School of Education (Study Group Chair) Robin Malloy, Professor, College of Law Trudy Morritz, Assistant Chancellor Sascha Milligan, Investment Advisor, Smith Barney Cathryn Newton, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Lil O'Rourke, Vice President and Chief Development Officer, Office of Institutional Advancement Laura Schweitzer, Provost-Designate, SUNY Upstate Medical University; Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Health Liaison, Syracuse University David Smith, Vice President, Enrollment Management James Spencer, Professor, College of Arts and Sciences (Study Group Chair) Eric Spina, Douglas D. Danforth Professor and Dean, L.C. Smith College of Engineering and Computer Science Eileen Strempel, Assistant Professor, College of Arts and Sciences and Assistant to the Dean, College of Visual and Performing Arts Ben Ware, Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School Barry Wells, Senior Vice President and Dean of Student Affairs Barbara Yonai, Director, Office of Institutional Research and Assessment 7 Study Groups Four Study Groups will be formed. The first three will examine issues relating to our new budget system and to our vision from the perspectives of faculty and graduate education and of undergraduate education, with a focus on improvement. The fourth will be responsible for demonstrating compliance. The Study Groups will be comprised of faculty, staff, students, and community members as appropriate to the self-study questions each Study Group will address. Deans who are not already on the Steering Committee have been assigned to a Study Group. Although a proposed list of members exists for each Study Group, membership decisions, which will be made in collaboration with the Study Group Chairs, will not be finalized until the self-study design is approved by Middle States to ensure that those who can contribute best to each Study Group are appointed. IV. CHARGES TO THE STUDY GROUPS AND GUIDELINES FOR THEIR REPORTS Standards, Topics, and Tasks We have chosen the selected topics model of self-study as the best lens through which to examine aspects of Syracuse University relating to our vision. Compliance with all fourteen standards will be demonstrated through documentation, coordinated by one study group. This process will allow the other three Study Groups to focus their attention exclusively on improvement through their examination of the research questions posed by the Steering Committee. They will gather and analyze data, develop 8 proposed recommendations that are clearly supported by evidence, and produce preliminary drafts and final drafts of reports for review by the Steering Committee. We expect that the recommendations which come out of the study of and reflection on these questions will provide a blueprint for enacting our vision. Research Questions Institutional Resources, Planning, and Assessment Study Group Syracuse University is in the process of implementing a Responsibility Center Management (RCM) budgeting system to achieve the goals of improving the University by co-locating revenue authority with the schools and colleges, which are directly responsible for advancing the quality of the University, and making our budget transparent. Although we are in the early stages of the process, our self-study for Middle States is an excellent opportunity to ask the following questions: How will we know five years out that we have been successful in achieving our goals? What steps should we take to involve the campus in making RCM successful? What changes to our institutional assessment processes do we need to make in an RCM environment? Faculty and Graduate Excellence Study Group An important facet of Syracuse University’s vision is to develop interdisciplinary excellence without sacrificing disciplinary excellence. What steps do we need to take to improve further our interdisciplinary scholarship? What are our measures of success? Another important aspect of our vision is to provide opportunities for advanced study for highly qualified students. Implicit in the vision of 9 excellence in graduate education is that students have the academic and personal support they need to excel. How well do our recruitment and financial aid processes support excellence in graduate education, particularly for students from underrepresented groups? What are our measures of success? How well do we provide the services and environment necessary for graduate students’ success? Engagement with the world (Syracuse, nationally, globally) is an important piece of Syracuse University’s vision. How can we extend the ways in which faculty and graduate students engage with the world? What internal changes do we need to make to allow faculty and graduate students to engage with the world more effectively? What are our measures of success? Undergraduate Education Study Group An important part of Syracuse University’s vision is to provide access to higher education for enterprising students. Implicit in the vision of providing access is that students have the support they need to be successful. How well do our recruitment and financial aid processes support access, particularly for students from underrepresented groups who have not traditionally had access? What are our measures of success? How well do we provide the services and environment necessary for undergraduate students’ success? Another component of Syracuse University’s vision is engagement with the world (Syracuse, nationally, globally). How can we extend the ways in which undergraduate students engage with the world? 10 What internal changes do we need to make to allow undergraduate students to engage with the world more effectively? What are our measures of success? Institutional Context and Educational Effectiveness Compliance Study Group This Study Group will be responsible for ensuring that we have demonstrated compliance with all fourteen standards by identifying and collecting the documents and for developing a roadmap for each of the standards (see sample roadmap in Section VI). Template for Study Group Reports Each Study Group’s report will conform to the following format: V. An overview of the Study Group’s research questions An analytical discussion of their research, with specific attention to strengths and challenges supported by evidence An explanation of how their findings and conclusions relate to the standards and the work of the other Study Groups Recommendations for improvement INVENTORY OF SUPPORT DOCUMENTS The Office of Institutional Research and Assessment will assist the Study Groups with collecting all appropriate documents necessary to fulfill their charge. Available materials include, for example: University Planning Documents Scholarship in Action Vision Statement Charter and Bylaws – Board of Trustees Master Plans (e.g., Space, Technology, Library, Institutional Advancement) 11 Division of Student Affairs Strategic Plan and 2004-2005 Goals Report Five-Year Retention Plan 2001-2006 Institutional Assessment Plan Benchmark Data (including reports to external constituents) IPEDS reports NCAA reports AAUP faculty data Peterson’s Guide, Princeton Review, and other external reports FACTS brochure, Office of Development University Retention Reports SU Dashboard Indicators Assessment Data Academic and student affairs program descriptions with learning outcomes and assessment information Accreditation Reports – schools/colleges and programs National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) The Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE) Your First College Year (YFCY) National Living/Learning Program Survey Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) HERI Faculty Survey Program Evaluations (examples) • • • • • Athletic Department – Academic Support Services Collegiate Science and Technology Entry Program (CSTEP) Science and Technology Entry Program (STEP) Student SUccess Initiative (SSUI) SummerStart 12 • New Student Orientation and Winter Welcome Annual Reports Center for Public and Community Service Annual Report Graduate School Annual Report Lillian and Emanuel Slutzker Center for International Services Annual Report Office of Admissions Annual Report Office of Research Annual Report Budget reports and audited financial statements University Publications/Documents Organizational Chart Administrative Policy Manual Faculty Manual Staff Manual Student Handbook Undergraduate and Graduate Course Catalogs Meeting minutes from the University Senate Newspapers and magazines, including SU Magazine, Daily Orange, The Record, Orangebytes Alumni Newsletter, Lubin House Newsletter, HR Update Issue, Diversity Network Update Newsletter, and various school/college publications Documents Specific to Middle States Middle States Annual Institutional Profiles 1989-1998 Self Study 2003 Periodic Review Report Middle States Association publications, including the following: • • Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education Designs for Excellence 13 • • • Assessing Student Learning and Institutional Effectiveness Student Learning Assessment Developing Research and Communication Skills: Guidelines for Information Literacy in the Curriculum VI. ORGANIZATION OF SELF-STUDY REPORT Executive Summary and Eligibility Certification Statement A brief description of the self-study process and the major findings and recommendations The Eligibility Certification Statement For Each Topic Topic heading Description of the topic and analysis of the evidence considered Cross-references to relevant materials in other parts of the report Analysis of relevant strengths and challenges Recommendations for improvement Conclusion A summary of the major conclusions reached and recommendations made Companion Documents An annotated list of supporting documents that will be available to the visiting team Report of the generalist evaluator(s) accompanied by our documentation roadmap VI. SAMPLE DOCUMENTATION ROADMAP Following is a partial example of a Documentation Roadmap for Standard 4, Leadership and Governance. This indicates the approach that the study group will follow for documenting compliance. 14 INSTITUTION NAME: SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY STANDARD DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BRIEF ANNOTATION 4. Leadership and Governance Board of Trustees Handbook, §1 and Appendices 1 and 2 Demonstrates governance structure, including bylaws, leadership, responsibilities Board of Trustees Handbook, §§ 2 and 3 Outlines committee structure and members’ qualifications and background, demonstrating expertise in the areas of oversight Board of Trustees Handbook, Appendix 1, Article 9 Demonstrates conflict of interest policy for governance board including procedure for disclosing conflicts and determining they do not interfere with governance Selected agendas from Board of Trustees Demonstrates input from students, staff, and faculty regarding issues Board is considering University Senate Bylaws Demonstrates shared collegial governance of faculty, staff, and students University Senate Membership and Committee Structure University Senate Committee Annual Reports University Senate Meeting minutes 15 Demonstrates oversight at the policy level of the quality of teaching and learning, the approval of degree program, and assessment of campus life VII. EDITORIAL STYLE AND FORMAT Although the Steering Committee has the ultimate responsibility for the self-study report, each Study Group is responsible for creating one or more chapters that conform to the specifications below. In order to facilitate the process of integrating chapters into the final report, a template will be provided that contains style and formatting. Microsoft Word for word processing Microsoft Excel for graphs, charts, tables 12-point Bookman Old Style font single-spaced two columns for narrative side bars and text boxes as appropriate left justification only 1 inch margins APA style for footnotes main headings small and large caps, bold secondary headings upper and lower case, bold After the content has been approved by the Steering Committee, the Chair of the Steering Committee will be responsible for final editing. 16 VIII. TIMETABLE Date Activity November 2005 Attend Middle State Self-study Institute December 2005 Meet with Chancellor January 2006 Meet with Vice Chancellor and Provost January 2006 Prepare materials for the deans, campus leaders, and University committees February 2006 Meet with deans, campus leaders, and University committees about self-study timeline and assessment Appoint Steering Committee and schedule meetings March 1-30, 2006 Self-study design to Steering Committee, deans, and other campus leaders March 30, 2006 Submit self-study design to Middle States April 12-14, 2006 Middle States visit for approval of self-study design May – June 2006 Launch accreditation website Appoint Study Groups July – August 2006 Gather documentation for Study Groups September 2006 Steering Committee and Study Groups meet together Mid-October 2006 Chairs report to Steering Committee on Study Group progress and questions December 2006 Chairs report to Steering Committee on Study Group progress and questions January 2007 Study Groups begin drafting reports March 2007 Chairs report to Steering Committee on Study Group progress and questions MSCHE selects team chair and SU approves selection Send self-study design to team chair April 2007 Study Groups submit first draft May 2007 Steering Committee meets with Chancellor, Chancellor’s Cabinet, and the Academic Deans for input Draft revised by Steering Committee 17 Summer 2007 Draft(s) revised by Steering Committee Final review of documentation for document review MSCHE selects evaluation team members and SU approves selection September 2007 Draft shared with campus community (e.g., Executive Committee and selected subcommittees of BoT, Chancellor’s Cabinet, Academic Deans, faculty, Student Affairs, University Senate, ACC, Graduate Council, undergraduate and graduate student groups, community groups) for comments and suggestions Post draft on MySlice and website Provide electronic feedback form on web Hold public forums for comments and suggestions October 2007 Steering Committee meets with Chancellor and Vice Chancellor to hear their recommendations based on the suggestions from campus community October 2007 Phone conference to prepare for Early Documentation Review November 2007 Early Documentation Review Team Chair preliminary visit December 2007 Steering Committee meets to make final revisions December 2007 Draft self-study to team Chair February 2008 Final self-study document to evaluation team Early April 2008 Team visit Spring 2008 Team report Institutional response Summer 2008 Committee on Evaluation Reports meets Commission Action IX. PROFILE OF THE EVALUATION TEAM It is our hope that the visiting evaluation team members will have experience with issues facing a university like Syracuse. The following descriptors of Syracuse University are important to consider in identifying 18 those members of the team who will conduct the early documentation compliance review: we are a private, four-year, doctoral/research university students are admitted directly to one of the University’s twelve schools/colleges we are an increasingly diverse institution we are primarily residential we have 12,905 undergraduates and 5,829 graduate students our students come from all 50 states and 85 foreign countries we have developed a number of Student Affairs/Academic Affairs partnerships Because our research questions study our new budget model and the excellence, access, and engagement strands of our vision, we suggest the site-visit team includes members who are experienced with: the implementation of Responsibility Center Management interdisciplinary scholarship graduate education, particularly in the area of engagement undergraduate education at a large, private, research university, particularly in the areas of access for underrepresented groups and engagement with the world We believe that we will derive the most benefit from an evaluation team with members who have experience at institutions with a similar profile and an understanding of these topics. 19
