From: Quinn, Paul
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 20:55
To: Faculty
Subject: College of Business Accreditation

Fellow Faculty,

I wanted to provide you with a brief update regarding the College of Business and the remarks made by PASSHE Chancellor Cavanaugh on Wednesday.  As you may or may not recall, the recent reorganization of the College of Business has been planned based on a mandate from the Chancellor’s office for AACSB accreditation.  This was a mandate issued by the previous Chancellor, Judy Hample, and supported by the Board of Governors.  On Wednesday, the Chancellor stated that there was no longer a mandate in effect.  He further supported this with a direct email to me and Ken Ehrensal.  His email reads as follows.

***********************************************************************************

Dear Paul and Ken,

During my visit to Kutztown this week, I was asked whether I mandated AACSB accreditation. I responded that I did not. However, I want to ensure that you understand that my predecessor, Chancellor Hample, did indeed mandate such accreditation, and did state that failure to obtain accreditation would likely result in departmental or program elimination. Consequently, decisions on campuses were made, including hiring decisions, that were in response to that mandate. My recent change in that mandate reflects a fundamental shift in system requirements. This shift in mandate happened in the past few months as a result of ongoing discussions regarding the new directions for performance funding being addressed by the Task Force.

John

John C. Cavanaugh, Ph.D., Chancellor
Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education
Dixon University Center
2986 N. Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110

***********************************************************************************
This new information changes the rules of the game.

Given this APSCUF-KU thinks the following:

1) the reorganization of the College of Business needs to stop immediately while we have a chance to digest the Chancellor’s Decision and process its effect on our University;

2) the administration and the faculty of the College of Business need to immediately revisit the accreditation process and discuss whether or not to pursue this or any other accreditation

On Monday, November 23 at 4pm APSCUF-KU will hold a special Executive Committee meeting at which time, we will discuss how to best move forward.  The Provost, Dr. Vargas, will be coming to the meeting to answer any questions we have and discuss the change in the mandate with us.  Then, on Tuesday, November 24, members of APSCUF-KU Exec will be meeting with the faculty in the College of Business to discuss how to best move forward. Thanks.

Paul

From: Cavanaugh, John

To: Quinn, Paul

Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:14 AM

Subject: RE: AACSB

Paul,

Thanks for your note. See specific replies below.

John

From: Paul Quinn [mailto:quinn@kutztown.edu]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 10:53 AM
To: Cavanaugh, John
Subject: Re: AACSB

Dr. Cavanaugh,

Thanks you for your email message this morning.  This is the first time we have had real clarity from PASSHE on this issue.  We are still trying to digest the impact of your words here on campus based on where we were in the accreditation process before your statements on Wednesday.

I have a few questions for you in regards to this matter.

1) So when you say that Kutztown needs to determine locally whether or not it wants to pursue AACSB accreditation, do you mean that the Kutztown Administration should determine it, or do you mean that the decision should be discussed through shared governance with the faculty and various governing bodies on campus?  I would say it needs to be discussed in a shared governance fashion, with very thorough discussion of the pros/cons. With AACSB, as I indicated in my remarks, there are real downsides for not doing it that should be considered. Some faculty indicated to me they came to Kutztown specifically because AACSB accreditation was a goal. Student recruitment also becomes an issue, as I discussed.

2) You refer to the shift in mandate that has happend these past few months in your email.  Has this shift been made known to the University Presidents prior to your statements on our campus? There has been general discussion only (i.e., that there would no longer be a mandate) recently. As a result, there have been no policy or procedure documents created yet.

3)Was State APSCUF made aware of this shift in mandate or the process that led to the shift in mandate via some sort of memo or the State Meet and Discuss meetings?  Because this change is very recent, I do not believe it has made it yet to the M&D at the state level (though I could be mistaken). That’s a result of the recency of the issue, nothing more. The actual process and details are still evolving, but in fairness to the campus I thought it would be an advance notice to make you aware of the upcoming changes. The performance funding task force will no doubt be recommending more when their work is completed; those will also be brought forward for discussion in appropriate venues (e.g., M&D). But because it had become clear that the accreditation mandate was not going to be one of them, I did not see a reason to withhold that information so decided to pass it along.

I apologize for the directness of my questions, but since your visit to our university, our College of Business has been thrown into a bit of chaos since WE were under the assumption that AACSB accreditation WAS a mandate until your statements on Wednesday.  I am just trying to construct a timeline to discern what happened and how to move forward.  Thanks for your time.  Your assumption was correct—it WAS a mandate until very recently.

Paul

I will try to provide additional updates later today or tomorrow.

Just in case their is any question about what the Chancellor’s meaning was when he stated on Wednesday there was no mandate for AACSB accreditation in the College of Business, I wanted to post this.  Paul and Ken (APSCUF-KU President and Vice President) were sent this email this morning from the Chancellor.  They forwarded it to APSCUF-KU Exec and I am posting it here:

Dear Paul and Ken,

During my visit to Kutztown this week, I was asked whether I mandated AACSB accreditation. I responded that I did not. However, I want to ensure that you understand that my predecessor, Chancellor Hample, did indeed mandate such accreditation, and did state that failure to obtain accreditation would likely result in departmental or program elimination. Consequently, decisions on campuses were made, including hiring decisions, that were in response to that mandate. My recent change in that mandate reflects a fundamental shift in system requirements. This shift in mandate happened in the past few months as a result of ongoing discussions regarding the new directions for performance funding being addressed by the Task Force.

John

John C. Cavanaugh, Ph.D., Chancellor
Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education
Dixon University Center
2986 N. Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110

t:  (717) 720-4010
f:  (717) 720-4011
e:  jcavanaugh@passhe.edu
w:  http://www.passhe.edu

I think it’s important that we get absolute clarity on what has been policy, what changed, and when it changed.

I wake this morning with my Irish up as strong as it was before I went to bed.  Here is the Chair of Accounting and Finance, Keshav Gupta’s, account of what the Chancellor said last night at the open faculty meeting @ KU:

At today’s meeting with PASSHE Chancellor, Dr. Cavanaugh, I asked the following question:

It is well known that colleges of business are cash generators.  E.G. for the fiscal year 1998-1999 Accounting and Finance Department generated almost $2,000,000 in tuition and fees revenues with only $950,000 in expenses.  That resulted in $1,050,000 in cash contribution, after expenses, to KU.  In view of this why would you want to shut down the college of business, if it were unable to get AACSB accreditation, and what will be its impact on KU?

Dr. Cavanaugh’s response was something like this:

Thank you for giving me a chance to dispel a rumor.  I have never said that.  There are Pros and Cons of AACSB.  AACSB’s AQ-PQ requirements are very stringent.  AACSB focuses more on faculty qualifications than perhaps any other accrediting body.  Unlike some other disciplines, AACSB accreditation is not absolutely necessary.  From the studies I have seen, AACSB is probably helpful in recruiting faculty and MBA students.  Impact of AACSB on recruitment of undergraduate students is less clear.

KU needs to debate pros and cons of going for AACSB accreditation and pros and cons of not going for AACSB accreditation.

Later on in a brief private conversation, Dr. Cavanaugh stated that closing down college of business would be stupid.  He also said that when he took office he saw all these accreditation mandates from the previous chancellor and that he did not agree with them.  Finally, he said that if we go for AACSB accreditation we have to make sure that we get it.

Cavanaugh’s statement flies in the face of everything we have heard up till now.  Here’s what I wrote to our APSCUF-KU Executive Committee this morning:

I want to put my two cents in on this.  I agree with Paul that managements plans for splitting the College of Business needs to stop immediately without conditions.  Frankly, I am livid.  Here’s just a little summary of why:

• Up until this point, we have been operating under the assumption there was a MANDATE for AACSB accreditation.  A Board of Governors’ policy was the source of that mandate and the former Chancellor had made it perfectly clear that any College or program offering a degree in business that was not AACSB accredited would face closure.  The effect of that would be the retrenchment of a significant number of faculty members.
• The ONLY reason Paul demanded that the administration produces a coherent plan and present that plan to the union was to save the jobs of a significant number of our faculty.
• It was clear if we HAD NOT forced this issue, the CoB Dean and the administration would have violated the contract, and potentially the law, which would have ended in a failed proposal for AACSB and the potential closure of the program and hence the loss of faculty jobs.
• As a union–particularly those of us who met with the administration to review and critique their proposals, Paul, Ruth, and myself–we have taken some hits for being involved in the process at all.  Personally, I was willing to absorb those blows and deal with the trash talk in the rumor mills because I thought we could save faculty jobs.  A couple of years ago we did the same thing when it came to saving the Early Learning Center.  We knew that we would take hits from some people who didn’t see the value of the Early Learning Center, but we got involved with discussion with administration because we thought we could save the ELC.  And we did.
• The chancellor’s announcement last night that there was no mandate for AACSB accreditation and than any decision to pursue accreditation should be a university wide discussion of strategic priorities–i.e. part of a shared governance process–raises several fundamental questions:
  • How is it possible that our administration did not know about this?  If they truly didn’t know about this, then that raises serious questions about what exactly President Cevallos has been doing this past few months when not in China.  If they DID know about this and hid this from us, all bets are off.
  • Given the significant cost of the accreditation process and the divisive nature of having a disproportionate amount of money being allocated to the College of Business in support of accreditation, HOW IS IT POSSIBLE that the administration–Cevallos in particular–not have someone in CONSTANT CONTACT with State PaSSHE regarding the process of AASCB accreditation and PaSSHE policy?
  • Why has the administration not released a clear statement today putting a halt to the reorganization of the College of Business given this new information?
  • Why did the CHANCELLOR not explicitly communicate this change of policy to all university presidents? From what we’ve been able to find out in a short period of time, this information is news to many of our colleagues across the state system.

I have to stop or I am going to get even angrier than I am at this point.  If we get additional corroboration of the Chancellor’s statements (there is a question as to whether the Board of Governors’ has actually approved this change of policy), then I think it’s time open the grievance flood gates.

This is a game changer folks.

Bread and Roses,

Kevin

Last night I wrote that there seemed to be a shift in yesterday’s meeting away from cut scores and to a discussion of what our writing work group thought more important.  Well, today Ira Blake, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Academic and Student Affairs, has been waving the “cut score” banner again this morning.  She said that our work groups need to come up with cut scores where we should begin.  

I just asked Ira Blake for a very clear statement about what are task was.  I asked, “so, let me get this straight, the task of our work group is to come up with cut scores.”  Her response, “yes.”  Yes, she did say a lot about us being experts and our imput important and that it was important that we had discussions about what is college ready, but in the end, the task is a cut score.  It will be interesting to see what will happen if our writing work group does not/refuses to come up with a cut score.

So, at today’s meeting of PaSSHE College Ready and Placement Work Group we’re hearing from Kathleen Howley, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Academic and Student Affairs.  At the moment, we’re talking about course numbering. Yes, course numbering.  We were just given a handout showing course equivalencies and course numbers across the State System.  As it turns out, Kutztown is the only campus that has Gen Ed courses–like composition–that begin with a zero (0) (ENG 022, 023, 025, etc.).  According to Howley and Ira Blake (also Assistant Vice Chancellor of Academic and Student Affairs), it  is Board of Governor policy that all introductory courses should be listed as 100 level courses.  Apparently, 0-level courses are supposed to be “remedial” classes.  So, despite the fact that equivalencies/transferability has already been established by a State organization TAOC (Transfer Articulation Oversight Committee), the assumption is being made by legislators and PaSSHE administration that we (KU) are giving college credit for remedial courses.  

This just gets more and more amazing each day.

It’s been an interesting day here in Harrisburg as day one of PaSSHE’s College Ready and Placement Work Group comes to a close.  Interesting because there has been a bit of a shift over the course of the day when it seemed like the sole purpose of this work group was going to be to choose one of the major standardized placement exams–COMPASS, ACCUPLACER, or ASSET (notice all of them are in all-caps)–as the standard for the whole State System.  By the day’s end that imperative was less clear.

The day alternated between whole group sessions led by Vice Chancellor Jim Moran and break out sessions: math, writing, and reading.  The general sessions were not super formal.  Rather, they consisted of Moran making some preliminary comments and report-backs/questions from the break out groups.  Initally Moran say that by the end of our two-days here in Harrisburg, he wanted us to come up with “baseline cut-scores” for each of the areas.  In other words, we were supposed to come up with the scores that would determine when a student would be forced into “remedial” courses.  The primary target was to “identify a standard across the system for college comp and intro to math.  Moran said that this is part of a larger effort–a “two-pronged effort”–to standardize the State’s definition of “college ready” and to create a common set of criteria for college placement.  The other prong is to standardize the entire State’s high school curriculum.  Moran said that PA was one of only five states that does not have a standard curriculum across the state.  

Our discussions were supposed to be guided by “all the research,” or at least the research that we were provided less than a week before today’s meeting.  Most of this research was conducted by ACT and some organizations assosicated with college testing agencies.  In fact, one of the key documents, “Rigor at Risk,” published by the ACT explicitly saw its study as a follow up to the federal government’s 1983 publication, A Nation at Risk.  The report suggests that since the publication of A Nation at Risk, 

almost every state has made significant efforts t o improve its educational system.  Nearly a quarter-century later, in a climate in which U.S. workers are dealing with new forms of technology and facing challenges of a global economy, it is not only reasonable but increasingly urgent to ask: Have we succeeded in fulfilling the goals of A Nation at Risk? (ACT, “Rigor at Risk).  

Of course we might draw attention to the fact that the 1983 study may have contributed to our current problems by narrowly defining curriculum to suit specific educational agendas.  I think it would be useful to revisit John Trimbur’s “Literacy and the Discourse of Crisis” in the midst of this discussion.  

Anyway, at several points in the discussion, Moran suggested that he would prefer one standard placement process across the State System.  However, he stopped short of saying this was necessary.  But, at several points he suggested that any “locally designed assessment” (directed self-placment being one of them) would need to demonstrate how the results could be compared to one of the standardized tests or standard State placement processes.  He said that it would be up to the people responsible at that university to “assess whether or not it would be worth the effort” to demonstrate compatabilty.  This approach seems very much like the State System’s buy-in to the  ”Voluntary System of Accountability,” which I don’t have time to go into here. 

There seems to be some pressure coming from the State Legislature on this score.  Moran told us that “it would not surprise me if there is some move for legislative action on remediation.”  In fact, he is giving testimony before the Republican Caucus tomorrow morning on precisely this topic.  

The good thing about today’s process was the breakout sessions with other faculty across the State System.  One of the most productive aspects of the day was that we talked about our different approaches to placement, different student bodies, and different configurations of composition (some universities have two semesters of comp, others just one).  If anything, I think most members of this group are committed to keeping local control over the placement process.  While no one was opposed to discussing the kind of skills and practices that are necessary for a student to succeed in our first-year composition classes, I remain concerned that the outcome of our work is beyond our control.  For example, we could generate some very good principles and the State System could then turn around and look at the standardized tests that seem to reflect those principles.  I am not suggesting that is what will happen, only one of my concerns.

I’ll have to leave it at that for now.  I’m meeting some of my fellow compers for dinner.  Hopefully, I’ll be back later with an update.

Hey all.  So, guess where I am.  Harrisburg.  I just checked into a Days Inn at around 11:30pm on Monday.  Tomorrow will begin what is being billed as a “Work Group” to determine a common definition of “college ready” and to “standardize” placement  in “remedial” courses. Presumably the outcomes of this group will contribute to a standard for Math and Writing across the State System.  

Now, anyone who knows me and/or knows our program at KU might question what it is that I am doing here.  Well, as the Coordinator of Composition I was asked to represent KU for the “writing” work group.  To be honest, I don’t know exactly what to expect.  The initial request was fairly vague.  However, a couple of days ago, we got another  email laying out the agenda a little more.  That email came with several attachments (which I will post tomorrow).  

Since I believe in working in public where we can all see what’s going on and contribute to the conversation, I am posting the email I received in it’s entirety.  I wil also be posting updates to this blog to let you know what seems to be the general thrust of the meeting.  The one article we were  asked to read before our meeting tomorrow is a policy brief called “It’s Not About the Cut Score: Redefining Placement Assessment Policyto Improve Student Success” authored by Michael Lawrence Collins for a Boston policy institute called Jobs for the Future. 

So, in the meantime, here’s the email I received on May 6th:

Colleagues: 

Thank you for your willingness to come to Harrisburg to develop a more consistent model for determining the standards for “college ready” and placement across PASSHE.  We have attached a number of documents to help shape the discussion and would request that you review the paper titled, “It’s Not About the Cut Score” prior to the meeting.

Let me first provide you with some context for our discussions, then provide some background for the attachments and finally talk about the details regarding arrangements and compensation. 

Context:

The primary goal is to achieve consistency in the definition of “college-ready” across the System.  Right now the standards vary considerably from university to university. The “Achieve the Dream” initiative at community colleges has focused on this effort and Pennsylvania is participating in that effort. We believe that a common standard, not necessarily a common test, will, taken in context, be one of the factors that will serve to improve the quality of the preK-16 educational system across the Commonwealth.

One may ask: “Why now?”  We believe that we have the support of the current administration and PDE to move in this direction; community colleges are receptive to us taking the lead and are willing to join in on the effort at the appropriate time. 

Concurrent with this effort is an attempt to identify for the System a high school curriculum required for regular admission (e.g., four (4) years English; three (3) years Math including Algebra II; three (3) years Science, etc).  A set of common placement standards for reading and mathematics helps set the expectation for such a curriculum.

During the System-level deliberations related to the standards for concurrent enrollment programs, the CAOs identified a set of standards that students should meet to be identified as “college-ready.” Also, Middle States’ teams have connected placement standards with measures of student learning outcomes in assessing general education programs and inquired about the consistency across System universities. 

Moreover, as part of the transfer and articulation legislation, standards for transfer of foundation courses were established. However, in some cases courses listed in the System are identified as remedial courses, which should not transfer. Currently, legislative hearings on remediation are taking place and the concept of consistency has been raised. Several states have moved forward with creating standards, either at the state or System level (e.g., New Jersey Community Colleges just recently agreed on common standards).

The interest in the Keystone Examination (formerly known as graduation competency assessments – exit exams from high school) has raised the ante in all of the aforementioned discussions. Local assessments within this context are acceptable only if the local district demonstrates comparability to the basic standard.

As the Office of the Chancellor has prepared the data for these hearings, it is increasingly difficult to explain the variation among our universities in the number of students required to take remedial or developmental courses.

The advent of the PIMS project (Pennsylvania Information Management System) and the connection of the higher education databases to the preK-12 databases (made possible through the use of the PA Secure ID effort) enable significant opportunities to provide detailed feedback to high schools on the success of students and nature of the curriculum. Consistency in standards allows for greater power of analysis to provide better feedback for improvements and curriculum revisions.

We also recognize that setting a “cut score” will not be sufficient and revisions will be required over the next several years as we are able to research the success of students. The ability to track students through the high school, community college and PASSHE will enable us to have an excellent database to make subsequent revisions as necessary.

A few years ago there was considerable discussion about whether four-year institutions should be in the business of remediation. We believe there is clear recognition that in Pennsylvania, with limited access to community colleges and given our mission as Pennsylvania’s public universities, the PASSHE recognizes that we will be involved in some form of developmental education to provide students with higher education opportunities, and that we should have in place better assessments and support for students that have potential.

We believe that now is the time for PASSHE to take a leadership role in the Commonwealth to set standards to improve the education of all students. Placement testing is but one aspect to this larger effort but is important in helping set the context of expectation.

Note that this does NOT mean that the admission standards across the universities are to be common or that we intend for universities to become more or less selective. Those decisions are governed by the universities themselves and by other factors. We are also looking at how to revise the accountability and performance funding measures to better reflect the access and quality mission of PASSHE and may need to consider how any change in the placement process affects those key measures.

Resources:

An excellent paper to read is, “It’s Not About the Cut Score” put out by the Achieve the Dream initiative.

We have attached material that details the System level reports from universities about the number of students taking “remedial” courses. We also attached a preliminary paper that provides a summary analysis of some of this data.  In addition, included are some summary data of college and university standards we collected a few years ago (and may require updating).

ACT has published several major studies focusing on the readiness of students based on performance on the ACT. “Readiness” is defined as the likelihood of receiving a C or better in the first college course.  Note that although several states are using the ACT as a placement exam (e.g., Arkansas), most researchers agree that the SAT should not be similarly used and should be used only as a possible screening tool to determine who should take a placement test.  We have included material from ACT.

Note that the link to the foundation courses that are approved for transfer is www.patrac.org

Details:

We are asking that you make your own hotel and travel arrangements. Attached is a list of hotels in the area with links to their website so that you can view their facilities when making reservations. Reimbursement and compensation will be through your own university. Travel and meals must fit within the standard PASSHE travel guidelines. To assure that your “take home” compensation is approximately $500/day, we have set aside $1,700 gross compensation for each of you. 

NOTE:  You will receive two additional e-mails with the reference material.