|
IUP Middle States Team Home
Self Study Report
Visiting
Team Report
Steering
Committee Membership
Subcommittee
Membership
Minutes
from Middle States Steering Committee
Timetable
Themes Unique to IUP
|
Welcome to IUP's Middle States
Reaccreditation Team website.
NEW... JULY 13, 2006
IUP
REACCREDITED BY MIDDLE STATES COMMISSION
The Middle States Commission on Higher
Education has awarded reaccreditation to Indiana University of Pennsylvania
for the next 10 years, along with noteworthy accolades for the University’s
“exemplary” comprehensive Self-Study and for the University’s outstanding
faculty, student services and information technology.
The Commission on Higher Education, based in Philadelphia, is
the unit of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools that
accredits degree-granting colleges and universities in the Middle States
region.
IUP began
preparing for reaccreditation in summer 2003. Throughout the process, more
than 200 members of the IUP community were involved in the development of
the Self-Study, which examined the University in the context of the 14
Middle States Standards for Accreditation: University Mission, Goals and
Objectives; Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal;
Institutional Resources; Leadership and Governance; Administration;
Integrity; Institutional Assessment; Student Admissions; Student Support
Offerings; Faculty; Educational Offerings; General Education; Related
Educational Activities; and Assessment of Student Learning.
IUP met all of the 14
standards, and was recognized for outstanding programs and procedures within
the categories.
“This highly positive
outcome confirms the excellence and high quality of IUP’s academic programs,
services and operations,” said IUP President Dr. Tony Atwater.
“I am delighted
that the Middle States Accrediting body, after a thorough review process,
has granted us reaccreditation for an additional 10-year period. The input
and feedback from the Middle States Self-Study process and the site
visitation will inform significantly the University’s strategic planning
process during the forthcoming academic year.”
The visiting team,
composed of university administrators from throughout the region, spent
three days at IUP in March completing interviews with University faculty,
staff, students and Steering Committee members. In its exit interview, the
team praised the IUP Self-Study, noting that it “will help the University
create a strategic framework and action plans that can carry it forward
throughout the next decade.”
The reaccreditation
report praised IUP for its “strong, dedicated, hard-working, and talented
faculty who are poised and anxious to begin work in earnest in order to
achieve the University’s new shared vision and mission.” The report noted
that “IUP’s faculty are credited by students and other stakeholders with
creating a teaching-learning environment that has ‘excellent teaching’ as
its heart. … Other terms used to describe the IUP faculty and experiences
are ‘like family,’ ‘responsive,’ ‘open,’ ‘accessible,’ and ‘passionate about
learning.’” Team members reported that “it was evident to members of the
Team that IUP values excellence in teaching and related support activities
such as scholarly endeavors and service.”
The accreditation report
also praised IUP’s regional campuses for being “well run, successful in
attracting students, and supported well” with well defined curriculum and
excellent physical facilities. The report also praised IUP’s distance
learning program, and especially support for faculty involved in technology
enhanced distance learning. Overall, the team praised IUP’s information
technology and commitment to the development of wireless connectivity.
Student services were
also applauded in the reaccreditation report, noting that “IUP offers a
broad array of academic support services based on institutional and well
articulated divisional and unit missions. There are extensive services,
programs, and activities available to extend the academic experience. These
efforts appear to be purposeful and meaningful and are subject to assessment
tools which are valued.
The report also
recognized the opportunities offered by the residential revival initiative.
The federal government
recognizes the Middle States Commission on Higher Education as the official
accrediting body for IUP. Its certification is necessary to receive any form
of federal funding.
The
Visiting Team Report to the IUP Community
A message from President Atwater (3-22-06):
I wish to
report that the Middle States site visitation at IUP has concluded with
an overall positive review of the university. Earlier today an oral
exit interview with the Middle States Reaccreditation Team concluded
its three-day campus visit. While the teams written report will
follow, I wanted to share some preliminary observations.
Dr. Donald
Langenberg, chair of the Middle States visiting team, observed that
“This is the best self-study I have ever seen,” a comment echoed by all
of the other members of the accreditation team during the interview. Dr.
Langenberg is the chancellor emeritus of the University System of
Maryland and is an experienced accreditation team member.
The team
made some very positive and helpful suggestions and recommendations for
our consideration, including coordination of the assessment process. We
also were asked to submit our Liberal Studies Review and Strategic
Planning documents as they are completed.
I want to
offer my sincere appreciation to all members of the University community
who have been part of this important process and who have made time to
be part of the forums and meetings held during the past three days.
Special thanks go to the Steering Committee; Dr. Nick Kolb, head of the
steering committee; his administrative assistant, Mrs. Jean Serio, and
Dr. Ben Rafoth, the faculty writer for the study, for their leadership
throughout this process.
When we
receive the reaccreditation report later this spring, we will share it
widely. I will welcome your comments and suggestions, as the University
will then have an opportunity to respond to its recommendations and
findings.
I want to
end this message with a quote from Dr. Dennis Black, a member of the
Steering Committee from the University of Buffalo: “The team found this
is an exciting time to be at IUP. There is a great atmosphere of
enthusiasm for the future of IUP among its staff, faculty and students.
IUP is definitely moving forward!”
Below: photos from Middle States site
visit.
FINAL Self-study unanimously approved by Steering Committee (as of
Dec. 20, 2005)
A final review of the
self-study, including the added matrix, was conducted and a few changes
were made at the Nov. 14 Steering Committee meeting. The self-study report
was unanimously approved at the meeting.
Now that the self-study phase is
complete, IUP is preparing for the peer review phase. The Middle States
Commission on Higher Education will select a team of experienced
practitioners to visit IUP and conduct an on-site evaluation. The team
visit is scheduled for March 19-22, 2006.
Self-Study Final Report
(click here)
|
Middle States Standards of Quality
Standard 1:
Mission, Goals and
Objectives
Chair: Michael Hood
The institution’s
mission clearly defines its purpose within the context of higher
education and explains whom the institution serves and what it intends
to accomplish. The institution’s stated goals and objectives,
consistent with the aspirations and expectations of higher education,
clearly specify how the institution will fulfill its mission. The
mission, goals and objectives are developed and recognized by the
institution with its members and its governing body and are utilized to
develop and shape its programs and practices and to evaluate its
effectiveness.
Executive Summary
Full
Subcommittee Report
Full Report Appendix
Standard 2:
Planning, Resource
Allocation, and Institutional Renewal
Chair: Rena Fowler
An institution
conducts ongoing planning and resource allocation based on its mission
and utilizes the results of its assessment activities for institutional
renewal. Implementation and subsequent evaluation of the success of the
strategic plan and resource allocation support the development and
change necessary to improve and to maintain institutional quality.
Executive
Summary
Full
Subcommittee Report
Full Report Appendix
Standard 3:
Institutional
Resources
Chair: Barbara Moore
The human, financial,
technical, physical facilities and other resources necessary to achieve
an institution’s mission and goals are available and accessible. In the
context of the institution’s mission, the effective and efficient uses
of the institution’s resources are analyzed as part of ongoing outcomes
assessment.
Executive
Summary
Full
Subcommittee Report
Standard 4:
Leadership and
Governance
Chair: Betsy Crane
The institution’s
system of governance clearly defines the roles of institutional
constituencies in policy development and decision-making. The
governance structure includes an active governing body with sufficient
autonomy to assure institutional integrity and to fulfill its
responsibilities of policy and resource development, consistent with the
mission of the institution.
Executive
Summary
Full
Subcommittee Report and Appendix
Standard 5:
Administration
Chair: Prashanth Nagendra Bharadwaj
The institution’s
administrative structure and service facilitate learning and
research/scholarship, foster the improvement of quality, and support the
institution’s organization and governance.
Executive
Summary
Full
Subcommittee Report and Appendix
Standard 6:
Integrity
Chair: Michele Schwietz
In the conduct of its
programs and activities involving the public and the constituencies it
serves, the institution demonstrates adherence to ethical standards and
its own stated policies, providing support to academic and intellectual
freedom.
Executive
Summary
Full
Subcommittee Report
Full Report Appendix
Standard 7:
Institutional
Assessment
Chair: Mark Piwinsky
The institution has
developed and implemented an assessment plan and process that evaluates
its overall effectiveness in: achieving its mission and goals;
implementing planning, resource allocation, and institutional renewal
process; using institutional resource effectively; providing leadership
and governance; providing administrative structures and services;
demonstrating institutional integrity; and assuring that institutional
processes and resources support appropriate learning and other outcomes
for its students and graduates.
Executive
Summary
Full
Subcommittee Report
Full
Report Appendix
Standard 8:
Student Admissions
Chair: Dennis Giever
The institution seeks
to admit students whose interests, goals and abilities are congruent
with its mission.
Executive
Summary
Full
Subcommittee Report
Full Report Appendix
Standard 9:
Student Support
Services
Chair: Rhonda Luckey
The institution
provides student support service reasonably necessary to enable each
student to achieve the institution’s goals for students.
Executive
Summary
Full
Subcommittee Report
Standard 10:
Faculty
Chair: Diane Klein
The institution’s
instructional, research and service programs are devised, developed,
monitored, and supported by qualified professionals.
Executive
Summary
Full
Subcommittee Report
Full Report Appendix
Standard 11:
Educational
Offerings Co-Chairs: David
Chambers/Gail Sechrist
The institution’s
educational offerings display academic content, rigor and coherence that
are appropriate to its higher education mission. The institution
identifies student learning goals and objectives, including knowledge
and skills, for its educational offerings.
Executive
Summary
Full
Subcommittee Report
Full Report Appendix
Standard 12:
General
Education
Chair: Mary Sadler
The institution’s
curricula are designed so that the students acquire and demonstrate
college-level proficiency in general education and essential skills,
including oral and written communication, scientific and quantitative
reasoning, critical analysis and reasoning, technological competency,
and information literacy.
Executive
Summary
Full
Subcommittee Report
Full Report Appendix
Standard 13:
Related
Educational
Activities
Chair: Patricia Scott
Institutional
programs or activities that are characterized by particular content,
focus, location, mode of delivery, or sponsorship meet appropriate
standards.
Executive
Summary
Full
Subcommittee Report
Standard 14:
Assessment of
Student Learning Co-Chairs: Nicholas Kolb/Mary
Ann Rafoth
Assessment of student
learning demonstrates that the institution’s students have knowledge,
skills and competencies consistent with institutional goals and that
students at graduation have achieved appropriate higher educational
goals.
Executive Summary
Full
Subcommittee Report
Full Report Appendix
Go to Middle States Standards of Quality
subcommittee listing
Back
to top of page
Middle States Steering Committee members --
Jan. 31, 2005 meeting
|
Photo information:
Dr. Donald
Langenberg, chair of the Middle States Reaccreditation
Visiting Team, met with a variety of IUP groups during
his visit on Oct. 11, 2005. Top photo, from left, is Dr.
Langenberg, at right, with Trustees David Osikowicz,
Gealy Wallwork and Susan Delaney. Center photo is Dr.
Langenberg with IUP President Dr. Tony Atwater. Bottom
photo is Dr. Langenberg meeting with members of the
Middle States Steering Committee.
Middle States Steering Committee (Educational
Effectiveness Team) First row, from left: Capt. Charles
O’Neal, assistant professor Military Science, Secretary,
University Senate; Gail Sechrist, Associate Professor,
Geography and Regional Planning, chair of subcommittee
11; Nichole Norris, Vice President of Student Congress;
Mary Ann Rafoth, Chair of Educational and School
Psychology, Vice President of APSCUF, chair of
subcommittee 14; and Mary Sadler, Professor, Nursing and
Allied Health, Director of Liberal Studies, chair of
subcommittee 12. Standing, from left: Diane Klein,
Professor, Special Education, chairperson subcommittee
10; Patricia Scott, Dean, Armstrong Campus, chair
subcommittee 13; and Jacqueline Beck, Director, Academic
Planning and Assessment, College of Health and Human
Services, Team Liaison. (Not pictured: Darlene
Richardson, Chairperson, Geoscience, Team Liaison; Mark
Collins, President of Student Congress; Kelli Custer,
Ph.D. candidate, graduate student representative.)
Middle States Steering
Committee (Institutional Context Team) First row, from left: Terry
Rittenberger, IUP Libraries and AFSCME representative; Michelle Fryling,
Director of Media Relations; Ramesh Soni, Interim Dean of School of Graduate
Studies; Michele Schwietz, Assistant Dean for Research, chair of
subcommittee 6; Prashanth N. Bharadwaj, chair of Management and chair of
subcommittee 5; and Rena Fowler, Dean of Libraries, chair of subcommittee 2;
Standing, from left: Steven Ender, Executive Deputy to the President, Team
Liaison; Michael Hood, Dean of Fine Arts, chair of subcommittee 1; Betsy
Crane, Associate Professor, Sociology, chair of subcommittee 4; Robert Marx,
Director, IUP Facilities Engineering and Construction Group; and John Henry
Steelman, Professor of Mathematics, President of APSCUF, Team Liaison. (Not
pictured: Barbara Moore, Director of Budget Planning and Instructional
Research, chair of subcommittee 3; Mark Piwinsky, Vice Provost for
Administration and Technology, chair of subcommittee 7; Susan Delaney,
Chairperson, Council of Trustees; Jill Risinger, Senior Analyst, University
Planning and Analysis.)
Middle States Steering
Committee (Executive Group), from left: Jean Serio, Administrative
Assistant; Steven Ender, Executive Deputy to the President, Team Liaison;
Bennett Rafoth, Professor, English, Director of Writing Center,
Faculty Writer; Nicholas Kolb, Associate Provost, Chair of Steering
Committee; John Henry Steelman, Professor of Mathematics, President of
APSCUF, Team Liaison; and Jacqueline Beck, Director of Academic Planning and
Assessment, College of Health and Human Services, Team Liaison. (Not
pictured: Darlene Richardson, Chairperson, Geoscience, Team Liaison.)
Back to top of page
|
