SELF-STUDY REPORT

FOR THE MIDDLE STATES COMMISSION ON

HIGHER EDUCATION

January 2009

BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY BLOOMSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA

Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania is committed to affirmative action by way of providing equal educational and employment opportunities for all persons without regard to race, religion, gender, age, national origin, sexual orientation, disability or veteran status.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Certification Statement ii

Executive Summary iii-viii

Self-Study Steering Committee ix

Working Groups Membership x-xii

Chapter 1 - Bloomsburg University: An Institutional Overview 1

Chapter 2 – Mission, Goals and Objectives 2-7

Chapter 3 - Planning, Resource Allocation and Institutional Renewal, and Institutional Resources

8-23

Chapter 4 - Leadership and Governance, Administration, Integrity, and Faculty

24-35

Chapter 5 - Institutional Assessment and Assessment of Student Learning

36-56

Chapter 6 - Student Admissions and Retention, Student Support Services, and Related Educational Activities

57-75

Chapter 7 - Educational Offerings and General Education

76-91

Chapter 8 – Conclusion

92-94

ii

iii

Bloomsburg University Middle States Self-Study

Executive Summary

Introduction Bloomsburg University, the largest university in Northeastern Pennsylvania, is one of the 14 public universities that comprise the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE). In concert with the basic mission of the PASSHE system, the University strives to provide an affordable quality educational experience to the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The University, which is grounded in a proud history of preparing K-12 teachers for employment in Pennsylvania schools, has grown into a comprehensive Masters I educational institution that offers 57 undergraduate and 18 graduate programs of study. This includes the University’s first doctoral program which began awarding degrees in May 2006. At the beginning of the 2008-09 academic year, total enrollment consisted of 8,081 undergraduate and 774 graduate students. Since the last decennial review in 1999, the University has experienced a sustained period of growth and renewal. Bloomsburg University enters the Middle States reaccreditation process during a period when it is receiving record numbers of student applications; experiencing excellent retention and graduation rates; is supported by a highly qualified faculty, staff, and administration; and is financially sound. Mission, Goals, and Objectives As part of a branding project that took place in 2007, an external agency interviewed and surveyed a broad cross section of the University’s constituencies to determine perceptions of Bloomsburg University. The research identified several “key drivers” of the University’s perceived identity. They included the bond between the teachers and students, quality of campus life, accessibility of the educational experience to the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the opportunity for graduates to achieve the “American Dream,” and that the University has a reputation of academic excellence. The findings affirmed that the University is perceived by its constituencies as fulfilling the key goals stated in its mission. When several key leaders within the University community were asked to articulate the institution’s mission, certain fundamental concepts repeatedly emerged. Most expressed the belief that the University exists to educate citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This means that the University must provide broad access to an affordable education for the citizens of the Commonwealth. It also means that the University is responsible for developing and maintaining high quality academic programs that prepare graduates for meaningful employment or post graduate studies, as well as to function effectively in an increasingly global society. There was also consensus among the University leaders that the mission statement is a dated document that needs to be reviewed to ensure that it reflects the direction that the various constituencies see the school heading in the future. This self-study’s first recommendation is

iv

that a comprehensive review of the Bloomsburg University Mission Statement should be undertaken as part of the next planning cycle. Planning, Resource Allocation and Institutional Renewal, and Institutional Resources The University is able to remain a financially strong institution because it conducts extensive annual planning and budgeting activities. At the beginning of each academic year the budget office prepares a Planning and Resource Allocation Process manual. That manual is a comprehensive guide that details the University’s strategic planning process, complete with a detailed multi-year timeline. The audited financial statements show that this emphasis on planning has enabled the University to consistently generate an annual increase in net assets. In addition, the University is able to adequately support its computer, classroom, and network technological needs through the use of Academic Enhancement and Technology Fees. This support includes scientific equipment, the University TV/Radio station, performance arts facilities, and department specific software. All of the academic technology systems or devices are also part of a formal life cycle replacement plan.

The University consistently ranks near the top of the 14 PASSHE institutions on several measures that are key to maintaining an economically viable institution. In 2007 PASSHE contracted with a consulting firm to benchmark facilities-related issues at all 14 PASSHE universities. The study found that Bloomsburg University’s physical resources compare favorably to those of the other institutions and that the financial commitment to facilities maintenance is adequate and producing positive results. The study also confirmed that the University has a relatively small amount of building space for the size of the campus population. However, for the period from 2003 to 2007, the University had the second largest total investment in facilities among PASSHE institutions as measured by funds expended per gross square foot. The study found that an area that needs to be watched is the annual stewardship investment the University makes in renovations other than large capital projects or daily maintenance. This self-study recommends that a percentage of the annual budget should be assigned for minor renovations of academic and general purpose facilities. Private contributions have become a vital source of funding for the University. To aid in this effort, the Bloomsburg University Foundation, Inc., an independent 501(c) (3) corporation, has been established to raise and distribute private philanthropic funds on behalf of the University. At the end of the 07-08 fiscal year, the Foundation’s assets totaled $14.3 million. Approximately 80 percent of the assets are permanently restricted. The University also has an Office of Development. Organizationally, this office is located within the University and is not part of the Foundation. This self-study recommends that a clear organizational structure needs to be defined between the Bloomsburg University Foundation and the Development Office.

v

In addition, the Husky Research Corporation, a non-profit organization established in 2003, assists in the acquisition of grants and contracts to support educational and research activities approved by the University. It also serves as a fiscal agent for grants and contracts that require more administrative flexibility than can be provided by the University. To date, the Corporation has negotiated over $1,200,000 in grants and contracts for the University. Leadership and Governance, Administration, Integrity, and Faculty The University President is the chief executive officer. His direct subordinate is the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs who is the chief academic officer at the institution. In addition, a series of vice presidents, deans, and other administrative officers are responsible for daily operations. As an institution that practices participatory governance, the University also has several standing committees that report to and advise the institution’s executive management team. With the exception of management, all employees at the University are covered under various collective bargaining agreements. Virtually every aspect of the employees’ and employer’s rights and obligations are clearly defined within the various union contracts and there are formal and informal processes for resolution of any contractual differences that may arise. The University’s greatest asset is its personnel. Most of the men and women who work at the University, regardless of their positions or job descriptions, are proud to be part of the institution’s staff. Worker pride is apparent throughout the campus. The evidence of this pride ranges from how well the staff maintain the buildings and grounds to the quality of service that students, parents and other visitors receive when they interact with University personnel. The University has worked hard to increase the number of women and historically under- represented individuals entering the campus workforce. The number of women has grown to just under 50 percent of the total staff and, because of an aggressive recruiting program, hiring of historically underrepresented individuals has begun to show a marked increase. Over the last decade, there has also been a dramatic shift in the composition of the faculty. A significant increase in the number of women hired in recent years has enabled the University to develop a more gender equitable faculty. The steady replacement of retiring faculty has also dramatically increased the number of faculty who have terminal degrees. By fall 2008, approximately 90 percent of the tenured/tenure track faculty possessed terminal degrees. The University is committed to maintaining an environment in which the individual rights of every member of the academic community are protected. It is also committed to ensuring that all members of the institution behave in an ethical manner at all times. The institution has several policies to protect the rights of students, faculty, staff and administrators. All of the policies contain procedures to ensure that fair and impartial processes exist for identifying and resolving any breaches in moral and ethical conduct that may occur within the University community. This includes moral and ethical breaches that may occur during the conduct of research.

vi

Institutional Assessment and Assessment of Student Learning The University is guided by its five year plan, Vision 2010, approved by the Council of Trustees in November, 2005. Seven critical areas were identified for inclusion in the strategic plan: academic program directions; teaching and learning (including technology); student growth and development; enrollment planning; civil and inclusive community; the University as a state and regional resource; and optimization of fiscal resources, including fund raising. The coordination of institutional assessment and strategic planning is assigned to the Office of Academic Affairs. However, the Office of Institutional Research, which reports to the Office of Academic Affairs, serves as the primary repository of institutional data. It is responsible for the collection, analysis and distribution of much of the data used in administrative planning and decision-making. The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs is currently responsible for coordinating the assessment of student learning at the University. He is assisted by the Associate Dean of Liberal Arts who coordinates most of the university-wide surveys and tests that are conducted as part of the University’s assessment program. In accordance with PASSHE policy, each academic and student life program must undergo a review on a five year cycle. This review requires an external consultant. Reports of these reviews are made to the Office of the Chancellor and the University Council of Trustees. In addition, approximately 80 percent of the academic programs at the University are currently accredited with various national/international accreditation bodies. Most of the accrediting bodies require demonstration of assessment of student learning as part of the accreditation process. Because the University has an inefficient support mechanism for its assessment activities, this self-study recommends that the University should create an Office of Outcomes Assessment and an elected Outcomes Assessment Committee. Student Admissions and Retention, Student Support Services, and Related Educational Activities The University has been working diligently to increase the enrollment of historically under-represented individuals. The percentage of underrepresented students in the undergraduate student body has almost doubled since 2000 and enhancing minority enrollment continues to be a priority for the University. Overall, the University has been able to achieve its enrollment goal of gradual sustained growth throughout the entire period under review. At the same time, the number of students graduating each year has remained fairly stable at approximately nineteen percent of total enrollment. This stability in the growth of the student body has a profound positive impact upon the University’s ability to be proactive in its strategic planning and operational decision making.

vii

However, PASSHE has projected that the number of Pennsylvania high school graduates will peak in 2009 and then gradually decline for the foreseeable future. Because the bulk of the current undergraduate student body is composed of students who matriculate into the institution directly from high school, the University has developed a number of initiatives to increase enrollment of non-traditional, minority, transfer, and graduate students. These efforts are clearly articulated in the University’s strategic enrollment management plan. The University’s efforts to increase the number of transfer and underrepresented students have already experienced varying levels of success. However, despite several initiatives designed to increase total graduate enrollment levels, including the creation of a doctorate of Audiology program, the University’s graduate programs have experienced enrollment declines in recent years. As part of the University’s student retention efforts, the institution has created a coordinated student services center, the Warren Student Services Center, which is centrally located in the middle of the lower campus. Most of the academic support services available to the student body are housed in this one facility, which allows for easy referral and coordination of services for students requiring assistance. The University has also developed several initiatives that are intended to help students to succeed at the institution. The combination of these initiatives is referred to as “The Freshman Year Experience.” A key component of the experience is the one credit University Seminar Course. This course is designed to introduce first semester freshmen to the tools they need to flourish at the University. Even though student retention is one of the primary goals of the University’s Strategic Plan, little data is collected about students who withdraw from the institution. This self-study recommends that a formal process for withdrawal from the University should be instituted that includes notification of the student’s advisor and department chair, a counseling session with an advisor, and an exit interview with a designated administrator. Educational Offerings and General Education As a comprehensive masters institution, the University has 32 academic departments that currently offer 99 undergraduate degrees/tracks, 45 undergraduate minors, 5 undergraduate concentrations, 17 graduate programs leading to a master’s degree, a doctorate in Audiology, as well as 2 supervisory certificate programs for professional educators. All of the programs are consistent with the University’s overall mission as a four-year, public institution, and support the mission of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. The University has several processes in place to aid both current and prospective students in understanding the specific course requirements of all undergraduate and graduate programs. The University Catalog, which is available electronically, provides complete course requirements, course sequence sheets, and curriculum worksheets for each major, as well as descriptions for all courses currently being offered. In addition, each department has developed a Graduation Requirements Sheet for use by its majors and faculty advisors.

viii

The University’s general education requirements have remained basically unchanged since they were reviewed approximately 20 years ago. As the result of recommendations received from several committees assigned to review general education, in November 2007, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs created the General Education Task Force. The Task Force was charged with developing an ongoing review process for the university’s general education program and to engage the entire university community in the development of this process. The General Education Task Force is expected to deliver its recommendations to the Bloomsburg University Curriculum Committee by May 2010. Conclusion Through coordinated planning and assessment activities, the University remains academically strong. This has enabled the University to sustain growth in enrollment while simultaneously increasing the academic quality of the student body and increasing the percentage of students who have historically been underrepresented. The expanded enrollment levels have translated into increased tuition and state appropriation revenues. Those additional revenues have been used to complete several capital projects and to hire and retain highly qualified faculty and staff. Maintaining desired enrollment levels in the face of declining numbers of high school graduates after 2009 is one of the greatest challenges facing the University in the next decade. Accordingly, the University has developed a comprehensive enrollment management plan to ensure that total enrollment at the institution remains strong for the foreseeable future. However, the current economic recession has resulted in a significant decline in anticipated state funding for the 2009-2010 academic year. Accordingly, the University has decided to increase total freshman enrollment by approximately 10 percent for the 2009-2010 academic year. The resulting increase in tuition and fees should be sufficient to enable the University to acquire the additional resources needed to service the expanded student body and to remain financially stable during the current economic recession. This self-study has given Bloomsburg University an opportunity to conduct a critical self evaluation. The results have reaffirmed that the University is strong academically and fiscally, and that it continues to fulfill its mission to provide the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a quality education at an affordable cost.

ix

SELF-STUDY STEERING COMMITTEE Richard Baker (Chair) Professor and Chair, Department of Accounting Steven Ekema Agbaw Professor, Department of English and Director, Frederick Douglass Institute Michael Coffta Associate Professor, Business Reference Librarian Laura Davis Associate Professor, Department of Finance and Legal Studies Eileen Evert Director of Annual Giving, Development Center Robert Gates Professor and Chair, Department of Education Studies and Secondary Education Christopher Keller Director, Admissions Jonathan Lincoln Assistant Vice President, Dean of Undergraduate

Education, Academic Affairs Dianne Mark Dean, College of Professional Studies Lynda Michaels Director, Alumni Affairs Swapan Mookerjee Professor and Chair, Exercise Science and Athletics John Riley Professor, Department of Mathematics, Computer Science, and Statistics Emeric Schultz Professor, Department of Chemistry and Director, University Honors Program Karen Slusser Director, Office of Institutional Research Lisa Stallbaumer Associate Professor, Department of History Claudia Thrush Director, Finance and Business Services Andrew Wislock Student Donald Young Director, Student Standards and Off Campus Housing

x

WORKING GROUPS MEMBERSHIP Mission, Goals, and Objectives John Riley (Chair)

Professor, Department of Mathematics, Computer Science, and Statistics

Eileen Evert Director of Annual Giving, Development Center Lynda Michaels Director, Alumni Affairs Lisa Stallbaumer Associate Professor, Department of History Andrew Wislock Student

Planning, Resource Allocation and Institutional Renewal, and Institutional Resources Christine M. Alichnie (Co-Chair)

Professor and Chair, Nursing, Director, School of Health Science.

Barbara L. Stiner (Co-Chair) Director, Budget Office Phillip Amarante Payroll Manager, Human Resources and Labor Relations. William E. Bealing, Jr. Professor, Accounting John E. Bodenman Professor, Geography and Geosciences Traci Boehret Student Peter Bohling Professor, Economics Dave Celli Manager, Technology Support Services Eileen Evert Director of Annual Giving, Development Center Marlyse Heaps Executive Assistant to the Provost Maria Silva Kuhn

Assistant Professor, Coordinator Library Acquisitions and Collections

Danielle Lomasson Student Eric Milner Assistant Vice President of Administration Claudia Thrush Director, Finance and Business Services Mary Vezendy Executive Assistant, Administration and Finance

xi

Leadership and Governance, Administration, Integrity, and Faculty Nancy E. Coulmas (Co-Chair) Professor, Accounting Jonathan Lincoln (Co-Chair)

Assistant Vice President, Dean of Undergraduate Education, Academic Affairs

Richard M. Angelo

Professor and Chair, Audiology and Speech Pathology and Director, Clinical Services

Mona Bartholomew

Executive Secretary for Vice President for University and Student Affairs

Mary Gardner

Assistant Professor, Exercise Science and Athletics, and Athletic Director

Robert Gates

Professor and Chair, Education Studies and Secondary Education

David A. Hill Comptroller, Community Activities Julie Kontos Professor, Psychology Scott C. Lowe Professor and Chair, Philosophy Robert P. Marande Dean, College of Science and Technology James F. Matta

Assistant Vice President, Dean of Graduate Studies and Research

John H. Riley Professor, Mathematics, Computer Science, and Statistics Institutional Assessment and Assessment of Student Learning Lisa Stallbaumer (Chair) Associate Professor, History Maryann Cegielsky Assistant Professor, Nursing Michael Coffta Associate Professor, Business Reference Librarian Laura Davis Associate Professor, Finance and Legal Studies Curt Jones Professor, Mathematics, Computer Science, and Statistics Tom Kresch Student Jeff C. Long Assistant Vice President Student Life Joneen Lowman Assistant Professor, Audiology and Speech Pathology Dianne Mark Dean, College of Professional Studies David Martin Dean, College of Business Megumi Omori

Assistant Professor, Sociology, Social Work and Criminal Justice

Cindy Venn Associate Professor, Geography and Geosciences Irvin Wright

Professor, Assistant to the Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs For Diversity Initiatives, Director, ACT 101/EOP and Chair, Developmental Instruction

xii

Student Admissions and Retention, Student Support Services, and Related Educational Activities Christopher J. Keller (Chair) Director, Admissions and Records Steven Ekema Agbaw Professor, English, Director, Frederick Douglass Institute M. Theresa Bloskey Director, TRiO Student Support Services Nawal Bonomo Administrative Assistant, College of Liberal Arts Veronica C. Breisch

Clerk Stenographer, Accounting Department, President, AFSCME Staff Members

Debra Chamberlain Secretary, Living and Learning Community Center Meredith Grimsley Associate Professor, Art and Art History Sheila Hartung Assistant Professor, Nursing Kathleen Heitzman Associate Athletics Director James K. Krause Associate Professor and Chair, Exceptionality Programs William Neese Professor, Marketing James C. Pomfret

Professor and Chair, Mathematics, Computer Science, and Statistics

Essie Reed Student Susan Sarver Administrative Assistant, Office of the Registrar Stephanie Schlitz Assistant Professor, English Debbie Stolz Administrative Assistant, Office of Diversity and Retention Andrew Wislock Student Donald W. Young Director, Student Standards and Off Campus Housing

Educational Offerings and General Education Emeric Schultz (Chair) Professor, Chemistry, Director, University Honors Program Shaheen Awan Professor, Audiology and Speech Pathology Carol G. Barnett Director, Career Development Center Betina Entzminger Associate Professor, English Heather Feldhaus

Assistant Professor, Sociology, Social Work and Criminal Justice

Richard J. Ganahl Professor, Mass Communications Joseph Kissell Registrar Joann M. Kreisher Clerk Typist, Economics Department Patricia J. Lenhart Academic Advisement Center Lynda Michaels Director of Alumni Affairs Swapan Mookerjee Professor and Chair, Exercise Science and Athletics Michael K. Shepard Professor, Geography and Geosciences A. Blair Staley Professor, Accounting Philip Tucker Associate Professor, Exceptionality Programs

CHAPTER ONE

BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY: AN INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW

Bloomsburg University, the largest university in Northeastern Pennsylvania, is one of the 14 public universities that comprise the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE). In concert with the basic mission of the PASSHE system, the University strives to provide an affordable quality educational experience to the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Originally founded as the Bloomsburg Literary Institute in 1839, the University has steadily grown into an educational and cultural center within the region. At the beginning of the 2008-09 academic year, total enrollment consisted of 8,081 undergraduate and 774 graduate students. The institution is equally proud that its over 56,000 living alumni are leaders in education, commerce, science, health care, the arts, and government. The University, which is grounded in a proud history of preparing K-12 teachers for employment in Pennsylvania schools, has grown into a comprehensive educational institution that offers 57 undergraduate and 18 graduate programs of study. This includes the University’s first doctoral program which began awarding an Au.D. degree in May 2006. All of the educational programs are currently housed in one of four colleges: Business, Liberal Arts, Professional Studies, and Science and Technology. The University’s organizational structure also includes three vice presidential areas: Academic Affairs, University and Student Affairs, and Administration and Finance. The University’s fundraising and research endeavors receive additional support from the Bloomsburg University Foundation and the Husky Research Corporation, respectively.

Since the last decennial review in 1999, the University has experienced a sustained period of growth and renewal. Bloomsburg University enters the Middle States reaccreditation process during a period when it is receiving record numbers of student applications, experiencing excellent retention and graduation rates, is supported by a highly qualified faculty, staff, and administration, and is financially sound. Bloomsburg University, a Master’s I institution that has been an accredited member of the Middle States Association since 1950, recognizes that this self-study provides an opportunity to document the practices that have enabled it to become a recognized educational leader in Pennsylvania. This review also gives the University a chance to reflect upon its current practices and to develop strategies that will further enhance the institution’s performance over the next decade.

2

CHAPTER TWO

MISSION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Standard 1

The Middle States Commission on Higher Education statement regarding the standard discussed in this chapter is:

Standard 1: Mission and Goals

The institution’s mission clearly defines its purpose within the context of higher education and indicates who the institution serves and what it intends to accomplish. The institution’s stated goals, consistent with the aspirations and expectations of higher education, clearly specify how the institution will fulfill its mission. The mission and goals are developed and recognized by the institution with the participation of its members and its governing body and are utilized to develop and shape its programs and practices and to evaluate its effectiveness.

Methodology In order to determine the university’s status relative to Standard 1, a five member working group was assigned to review the University Mission. The review included examination of Bloomsburg University’s Mission Statement, the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE) mission statement [Exhibit 1], the mission statements of the other PASSHE universities as well as other peer institutions, a variety of University planning and administrative documents, the branding survey completed in August 2007 by Creosote Affects [Exhibit 2], and portions of a survey of faculty, staff, and administrators administered as part of the self-study process [Exhibit 3]. The University’s Mission Statement

Bloomsburg University, as one of 14 institutions in the State System of Higher Education of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, embraces the general mission of the system to assure excellence in higher education at an affordable cost. The campus is accessible and attractive, located in the Town of Bloomsburg near the Susquehanna River and Interstate 80. Bloomsburg is a coeducational institution serving students of diverse backgrounds from Pennsylvania, its surrounding states, and foreign countries. To its community and region, the university is an artistic and educational resource that serves a broad range of community needs in education, health care, business-related services, library resources, and cultural activities. It offers undergraduate programs as well as graduate programs in select areas of strength. There is an emphasis on a strong liberal arts preparation. The university is committed to a

3

program of affirmative action in order to provide equal educational opportunity to all persons. It is a goal of the university to integrate academic programs, cultural activities, and interpersonal relations to promote intellectual growth and social responsibility among students. The university seeks to extend the academic environment from the classroom into other student activities. It strives to foster openness in communication and involvement in decision-making through a particular governance structure. In this atmosphere, faculty, administration, staff, and students attain a genuine respect for one another, a concern for the enrichment of their experience, and the achievement of their common purpose. The university community is committed to the principles of personal and academic freedom within the framework of ethical responsibilities. By emphasizing the assimilation, synthesis, and integration of information, it is a goal of the university to develop in its students the characteristics of mental resourcefulness and responsible self-expression as well as the abilities to think critically, clarify values, and demonstrate problem-solving skills. While maintaining programs for which Bloomsburg has been traditionally recognized, such as those in business and education, the university has identified strategic directions that include programs in health-related fields; programs that promote student-faculty interaction in teaching, learning, and research; programs that emphasize regional, national, international, and environmental concerns; and programs that incorporate the application of technology into instruction. (Approved by State System Board of Governors, July 1987)

Analysis The University’s mission statement is closely aligned with the PASSHE Mission Statement [Exhibit 1]. The PASSHE mission includes phrases such as “stimulating intellectual growth,” “citizenship, global awareness, and social responsibility,” and “promoting diversity” which approximate key statements within the University’s Mission Statement and Strategic Plans. Many of these same goals were also found in the mission statements of the other PASSHE system universities and various non system institutions that the University has identified as peer institutions [Exhibit 4]. The University’s mission statement defines the goals that currently drive the university’s planning processes. Information contained in subsequent chapters of this document will clearly demonstrate that the University’s deployment of human and fiscal resources is consistent with its mission and goals. Each academic department within the University is also required to have a mission statement. Their statements are reviewed and updated as part of their mandatory five year reviews. During the review process, each department’s mission statement is examined to ensure that it reflects the overall mission of the University.

4

The University’s planning process is driven by the University-wide Strategic Plan. The final operational strategic plan is a compendium of plans prepared by each academic and administrative department within the university. All individual strategic plans are prepared in a standardized spreadsheet format which requires each department to develop annual objectives and strategies in compliance with the goals that appear in the University-wide Strategic Plan. Each year, as part of the strategic planning process, both the University and departmental strategic goals are reviewed and, when justified, revised.

The 2008-09 Strategic Plan [Exhibit 5] identifies the University’s goals for the academic year as:

• Develop and refine academic programs, general education, and other experiences to meet the needs of our commonwealth, nation, and global society.

• Provide instructional experiences that produce optimum student achievement. • Offer co-curricular programs that enhance living and learning and support the academic

mission. • Attract and enroll undergraduate and graduate students who have the potential to succeed

in their area of study and contribute to society upon graduation. • Attract a diverse population of faculty, staff and students, and provide a campus climate

that promotes diversity, equity, and civility for all. • Increase the retention/graduation rate of historically underrepresented students to

PASSHE performance targets. • Provide economic and cultural resources to the state and the region. • Ensure that University resources are used effectively and efficiently. • Regularly assess and evaluate institutional effectiveness. • Implement the campus facilities plan.

Creosote Affects submitted a Branding Project Summary to the University in August 2007 [Exhibit 2]. The project, conducted by an external agency (Creosote), interviewed and surveyed a broad cross section of the University’s constituencies to determine their perceptions of Bloomsburg University. Their research identified several “key drivers” of the University’s perceived identity. They included the bond between the teachers and students, quality of campus life, accessibility of the educational experience to the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the opportunity for its graduates to achieve the “American Dream,” and that the University has a reputation of academic excellence. Their findings affirmed that the University is perceived by its constituencies as fulfilling the key goals stated in its mission. As part of the self-assessment process, an electronic questionnaire was sent to every faculty member, staff member, and administrator via university email. A total of 302 individuals, approximately 25 percent of the individuals contacted, submitted usable responses [Exhibit 3]. A review of the responses to questions regarding the University’s mission produced several informative results.

5

Selected Mission Statement Questions

Yes No No Opinion

Q-7. Have you read the mission statement? 93% 7% na Q-8. Does the mission statement give a clear description of the University’s purpose?

68%

20%

12%

Q-12. Do the local community leaders and residents understand the University’s mission?

16%

50%

34%

It is noteworthy that, in the electronic survey instrument, there was a link provided to the University web page so that the respondents could review the mission if they wished. With that caveat, the survey responses clearly indicate that most of the respondents were familiar with the University’s mission. The survey responses also indicated that there is a perception that members of the local community do not understand the University’s mission. This is not surprising given that the majority of the local community members are not directly involved with the academic and related programs offered by the University. As part of the assessment process, several key leaders within the University community were interviewed. They were:

Name Title Interview Date

Dr. Jessica Kozloff University President (since retired) 12/20/2007 Dr. Richard Rugen Vice President of Administration

and Finance 3/6/2008

Ms. Veronica Breisch President, AFSCME local 3/6/2008 Dr. Stephen Kokoska President, APSCUF local 3/11/2008 Dr. James Mackin Provost and Vice President for

Academic Affairs 3/11/2008

Dr. H. Preston Herring Vice President of Student and University Affairs

3/12/2008

Ms. Gretchen Osterman President, SCUPA local 3/14/2008 Ms. Virginia Rinkus Human Resources Director 3/25/2008 Mr. Robert J. Gibble, ‘68 Chair, Bloomsburg University

Council of Trustees and Alumnus 3/26/2008

Mr. James Hollister, ‘78 Assistant Vice President of University Relations and Alumnus

3/26/2008

Dr. David Soltz University President (current) 3/27/2008 Mr. Christopher Keller Director of Admissions 3/27/2008

When these individuals were asked to articulate the University’s mission, certain key concepts repeatedly emerged. Most expressed the belief that the University exists to educate citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This means that the University must provide access to affordable education to the broadest possible population within the Commonwealth. It also

6

means that the University is responsible for developing and maintaining high quality academic programs that prepare the University’s graduates for meaningful employment or post graduate studies, as well as to function effectively in an increasingly global society. There was also consensus among the University leaders that the mission statement is a dated document that needs to be reviewed to ensure that it reflects the direction that the various constituencies see the school heading in the future. This included consensus that the mission statement should be more concise. The greatest concern expressed during the interviews was that fulfillment of the University’s Mission is constrained by factors over which the institution has little or no control. Once the University establishes its enrollment targets, the institution’s primary general revenue streams become driven by forces outside of the administration’s control. Tuition is set by the PASSHE Board of Governors and the State Legislature establishes the annual state appropriation. On the expense side of the ledger, approximately 78 percent of the University’s current expenses are for salaries and fringe benefits which result from collective bargaining unit contracts negotiated at the statewide level. The vast majority of the remaining expenses involve such basic expense lines as supplies and utilities which are quasi fixed in nature. The individuals interviewed repeatedly pointed out that the University does set aside a pool of funds each year to fund new initiatives and programs. The bulk of this funding requires submission of individual departmental Action Plan requests [Exhibit 6] that are tied to each department’s strategic plan. Those plans are then reviewed and ranked, first within the appropriate college, and then by the Planning and Budget Committee. Recommendation All of the individuals interviewed agreed that the Mission Statement is pivotal to the current planning and future success of the University.

Recommendation 1: A comprehensive review of the Bloomsburg University Mission Statement should be undertaken as part of the next planning cycle.

Justification

• The mission has existed in its current format, without undergoing a review, through a period of time when the University has changed in a number of important ways.

• The mission should be concise and a key component of the University’s literature. • The mission should focus on what the University intends to achieve, its purpose for

existing. • The mission needs to be a statement that the students, faculty, staff, administrators, and

other constituents can identify with.

7

Process Review of the mission needs to take place via a process that involves the entire campus community. The results of question number 11 of the self-study questionnaire [Exhibit 3] clearly indicate that the respondents feel that the entire campus community is responsible for review of the mission statement. However, in order for the process to be effective, it needs to be driven by the President and senior administration so that there is no ambiguity about the importance of, or support for, a review of the mission. Fortunately, all academic departments within the University, as well as each college, have concise mission statements. These statements reflect how various groups of faculty and administrators currently interpret the University’s mission. In addition, the Branding Project prepared by Creosote Affects in 2007 [Exhibit 2] provides an extensive external review of what the University’s stakeholders believe are the institution’s key attributes. These documents provide an excellent starting point for a comprehensive review of the University’s mission. In addition, the University needs to conduct a detailed SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis and the results need to be incorporated into the review of the mission statement, as well as the next round of strategic planning. This includes dissemination of the results of the SWOT analysis to the entire University community to help facilitate creation of a mission statement that can lead the institution into the next decade.

8

CHAPTER THREE

PLANNING, RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW, AND INSTITUTIONAL RESOURCES

Standards 2 & 3

The Middle States Commission on Higher Education statements regarding the standards discussed in this chapter are:

Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal

An institution conducts ongoing planning and resource allocation based on its mission and goals, develops objectives to achieve them, 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.

Standard 3: Institutional Resources

The human, financial, technical, 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.

Methodology A fifteen member working group was assigned to review planning, resource allocation, institutional renewal, and institutional resources. The review included examination of the University’s budgets, financial statements, strategic planning documents, performance measures, and the activities of the Bloomsburg University Foundation. Analysis Bloomsburg University is able to remain a financially strong institution because it conducts extensive annual planning and budgeting activities. At the beginning of each academic year, the budget office prepares a Planning and Resource Allocation Process manual [Exhibit 7]. That manual is a comprehensive guide that details the University’s strategic planning process, complete with a detailed multi-year timeline. The various components of the University’s planning and assessment process are presented in this and subsequent chapters. The University has a history of being fiscally responsible. The audited financial statements show that the University has been able to consistently generate an annual increase in net assets. The table on the following page provides some key financial data from the last several audited financial statements.

9

Key Financial Data, Year Ended June 30 (in thousands)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Assets $135,910 $114,897 $121,213 $139,189 $149,949 $159,769 $167,637 Total Liabilities 74,071 85,030 88,603 98,813 101,353 105,845 111,695 Total Net Assets 61,839 29,867 32,610 40,376 48,596 53,924 55,942 Increase in Net Assets 3,090 2,858 2,743 7,766 8,220 5,328 2,018 Increase/(Decrease) in Cash $ 4,286 $ 11,716 $ 1,517 $ 7,628 $ 2,877 $ 47 $(5,578)

Source: Exhibit 8 - Bloomsburg University Annual Audited Financial Statements. Notes: In 2003 there was a $34,829,515 restatement of net assets to exclude capital assets held in the name of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In 2007 and 2008, the University expended cash to fund several capital projects including advancing $3,054,927 for construction of student housing which will be repaid from the proceeds of a July 17, 2008 bond issue. The Budget The following table presents a portion of the summary worksheet for the FY 2009/10 initial budget submitted to PASSHE.

Board of Governors Budget Request Summary – Bloomsburg University Educational & General Budget Percent Percent Revenue/Sources FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 Change FY 2009/10 Change Tuition $ 52,871,726 $ 56,211,524 6.3% $ 57,214,403 1.8% Fees 8,158,802 8,673,482 6.3% 8,791,024 1.4% State Appropriation 36,887,655 37,833,414 2.6% 37,833,414 0.0% All Other Revenue 6,717,380 6,485,869 -3.4% 6,485,869 0.0% Use of Carry forward Fund Balance 0 n/a 2,897,508 -100.0% 0 Total Revenue/Sources $104,635,563 7.1% $112,101,797 -1.6% $110,324,710 Expenditures and Transfers

Compensation Summary: Salaries & Wages $ 57,781,042 $ 61,212,856 5.9% $ 64,069,405 4.7% Benefits 20,269,793 26.2% 25,586,058 7.5% 27,504,737

Subtotal, Compensation 78,050,835 86,798,914 11.2% 91,574,142 5.5% Services & Supplies 19,597,877 20,792,255 6.1% 21,535,318 3.6% Capital Expenditures 1,821,552 1,944,085 6.7% 2,028,891 4.4% Transfers 5,165,299 -50.3% 2,566,543 -1.0% 2,540,471 Total Expenditures and Transfers 104,635,563 7.1% 112,101,797 5.0% 117,678,822 Revenue/Sources less Expenditures/Transfers $ 0 $ 0 ($7,354,112)

Source: Exhibit 9 – Bloomsburg University, FY 2009/10 Budget Report (BUDRPT). Each fiscal year the University is required to prepare a detailed budget for PASSHE. That budget includes actual activity for the preceding year, budgeted activity for the current year, and a tentative budget for the following year. The tentative budget can not be finalized until after the Commonwealth’s annual budget is passed by the State Legislature and the Pennsylvania State

10

System of Higher Education (PASSHE) Board of Governors subsequently sets tuition rates for the new academic year. Both of these actions routinely occur right at the beginning of the new fiscal year. The University’s planning and budgeting processes are fundamentally linked to those of PASSHE. For example, both the annual tuition rates and the allocation of the annual state appropriation from PASSHE are established at the system level. This means that the basis for the University’s two major revenue streams is outside of the institution’s direct control. However, since both of these funding streams are tied to enrollment, the University’s basic means of influencing its primary revenues is through controlling enrollment levels. Thus, enrollment management has become a significant component of all institutional planning processes. The University’s enrollment management plan is discussed in greater detail in subsequent chapters. Historically, the University has been able to balance most annual budgets without the use of its carry forward fund balance. However, as seen in the table above, a significant amount of carry forward funds ($2.9 million) were needed to balance the fiscal year 2008/09 budget. Furthermore, on October 23, 2008, at the request of the Governor of Pennsylvania, the PASSHE Board of Governors agreed to retroactively set aside approximately $22 million from this year’s state appropriation to help fund a potential deficit in the state budget caused by the current economic crisis. This amount represents 4.25 percent of the fiscal year 2008/09 PASSHE state appropriation. For the University, the potential decrease in its share of the state appropriation would be approximately $1.6 million. Fortunately, a plan to cover this potential shortfall has already been implemented by the University. For fiscal year 2009/10, the University is currently projecting a $7.4 million deficit. Although this deficit will be reduced after the 2009/10 tuition and appropriation increases are approved, it is one of the largest projected deficits in University history. Therefore, the University has elected to increase fall freshman enrollment by 10 percent to ensure that sufficient tuition and fee revenue is generated to offset the projected deficit. It is also critical that a consistent and detailed review of expenditures, particularly salaries and benefits, continues to occur as the University strives to operate more efficiently while simultaneously maintaining the quality of its educational programs. The planning and budgeting process utilized by the University is summarized in PRP 2220 – Planning and Resource Allocation Process [Exhibit 10]. Performance Funding The PASSHE Board of Governors also established a performance funding program in July 2000 to reward state system universities for demonstrated success and continued improvement in several key areas. The performance funding matrix is a subset of the accountability matrix that is part of the System Accountability Plan (SAP) [Exhibit 11]. Most of the performance measures also contain several detailed sub-measures.

11

The following table lists the current SAP performance measures and identifies the measures used to compute the University’s performance funding.

System Accountability Performance Measures Quantitative

Degrees Awarded * Second Year Persistence * Accreditation Graduation Rate* Faculty Productivity * Distance Education PRAXIS Aggregate Passing Rate Internships New PA Community College Transfers

Diversity of Entering Class Enrollment Diversity Employee Diversity * Degree Programs with Few Graduates Personnel Ratio * Private Support Instructional Cost * Faculty Terminal Degrees *

Qualitative Academic Quality Student Achievement and Success High Need Academic Programs

Economic Development Resource Stewardship and Utilization

* Measures used by PASSHE to compute performance funding. For the 2008-2009 academic year, total available performance funding amounted to 8 percent of the PASSHE base state funding allocation, or 39.9 million dollars. The University’s annual performance funding is based upon how well the institution meets its performance funding goals during the preceding academic year, as well as how well the other PASSHE schools perform. Performing well in a specific category may not result in increased funding if several other institutions also do well. Also, performance funding is a zero sum game. If one institution receives more than their base 8 percent, another institution receives less. The following table lists the University’s performance ranking on several of the SAP sub-measures for the 2007-2008 academic year. (The cohort is the 14 PASSHE Universities.)

SAP Sub-measures Performance 2007-2008 Ranked In The Top Five Ranked In The Bottom Seven

Sub-measure Rank Sub-measure Rank Four Year Graduation – Overall 2 Faculty who are Minority 8 Six Year Graduation – Black 2 Compensation/Total Expenditures 8 Retention Rate – Black 3 Undergraduate Cost per FTE Student 8 Degree to Enrollment Ratio – Masters 4 Eligible Programs Accredited 9 Retention Rate – Overall 4 New Community College Students 9 Four Year Graduation – Hispanic 4 Non-Faculty who are Minority 10 Six Year Graduation – Overall 4 Four Year Graduation-Black 11 New Students who are Hispanic 4 Students in Distance Education Courses 11 Masters Cost per FTE Student 4 Executives who are Female 11 Credits per FTE Instructional Faculty 5 Non-faculty who are Female 13 Private Funds Raised 5 PRAXIS Aggregate Passing Rate 14 Faculty with Terminal Degrees 5 Executives who are Minority 14 Faculty who are Female 14

Source: Exhibit 11 – Bloomsburg University Accountability Measures Presentation, 2007-2008 Accountability Measures.

12

Most of the SAP performance measures are broken down into sub-measures. This means that an institution can score well on part of a measure while not meeting minimal expectations in another part of the same measure. The University ranks near the top of the 14 PASSHE institutions on several measures that are key to maintaining an economically viable institution that is able to attract new students. However, it is not as effective in attracting female and other historically underrepresented categories of faculty, staff, and administrators. In response to these findings, the University has developed an aggressive approach toward recruiting women and other minorities. All new employee searches target advertisements in minority publications and senior managers participate in regional and national minority recruitment fairs. In some sub-measures the University is actually doing very well, but the competition is intense. As an example, approximately 80 percent of all eligible programs at the University are currently accredited and many of the remaining 20 percent are nearing accreditation. However, the institution only ranks 9th overall within the system. Although increasing the University’s share of performance funding each year is not entirely within the University’s control, both the financial and intrinsic values derived from doing so necessitates that the SAP goals be considered whenever planning takes place. Performing well on the SAP goals not only brings several million dollars into the University each year, it also demonstrates to both internal and external constituents that the institution is achieving the key goals established by PASSHE. This is particularly important because the goals are also consistent with the University’s mission and strategic plan. The following table shows the difference between the actual SAP funding received by the University and the amount of funding it would have received (percentage of base allocation) had there been no performance funding program.

Bloomsburg University Performance Funding 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 SAP Funding received

$428,606 $1,190,156 $2,193,492 $2,678,082 $3,295,231 $2,827,199 $3,151,078

Percentage base allocation

667,866 956,173 1,664,889 2,429,138 2,917,313 2,988,921 3,065,054

Difference ($239,260) $233,983 $528,603 $248,944 $377,918 ($161,722) $86,024 The data shows that the University has done well under the performance funding model. In most years, the University has received more funds under SAP than it would have received without the program. Technological Resources The University is able to adequately support its computer, classroom, and network technological needs through the use of Academic Enhancement and Technology Fees. This support includes items such as scientific equipment, the University TV/Radio station, performance arts facilities, and department specific software.

13

Organizational Structure The Assistant Vice President of Technology and Library Services, the executive in charge of the Office of Technology and the Library, reports to the Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs. As a member of Dean’s Council and the President’s Advisory Council, he collaborates with senior academic and administrative leaders in the development and implementation of both institutional and information technology related strategic plans. All academic technology plans and expenditures, including those funded with technology fee revenues, are reviewed and approved through the Dean’s Council. Actual technology fee purchase requests are processed through the Office of Technology and are tracked against the approved technology plan. The Office of Technology is composed of five functional units:

• Technological Support Services - responsible for administrative, academic staff, and faculty computers; classroom and laboratory technology; helpdesk; faculty and staff technology training; and instructional design services.

• Network Systems - responsible for all network servers, systems, and services. • Applications Development and Operations - responsible for all applications development

and customization, mainframe operations and services, and a helpdesk and training services for implementation of the PASSHE shared administrative system.

• Telecommunications - responsible for all telephone switching devices and services, and the physical infrastructure for both data and telephone connectivity (wired and wireless).

• Performing Arts Facility - responsible for physical and technical maintenance, scheduling/ticketing services for the two large performance spaces/classrooms, and the radio/television/cable systems, facilities, and equipment.

The Assistant Vice President of Technology and Library Services is also a member of the PASSHE Chief Information and Technology Officers committee. That group meets monthly to coordinate system-wide technology planning initiatives and collaborative purchases. Technology Plan

The 2006 Technology Plan [Exhibit 12] consists of eleven goals focusing on users, their interaction with technology, and their participation in technology-related decision making. Because of the major role technology plays across the University, it is directly linked to the budgeting process. Annual line item funding has been earmarked at appropriate levels for the regular replacement of faculty and staff computers, network infrastructure components, classroom presentation systems, and other items that require regular replacement. This process has led to a more equitable and predictable allocation of resources among all constituencies, higher levels of satisfaction among users, improved performance of all critical systems, reduced maintenance requests or down time, simplified planning and budgeting processes, and more competitive pricing from vendors. This funding commitment underscores the institution’s understanding of the key role technology plays in teaching, learning and research endeavors. The University has two major funding sources for technology, Academic Enhancement Fees, and Technology Fees. Academic Enhancement Fees, which were instituted in 1989, support

14

personnel, equipment, and related materials purchases that promote curricular programs and services. Set annually by the Bloomsburg University Council of Trustees, the fee is used to enhance the technical and the living/learning experiences for students, faculty and staff. The current fee is $267.75 per semester for full time students and is prorated for part time students. A technology fee was established by the PASSHE Board of Governors in 2003 to provide direct support to the technology infrastructure on the system’s campuses. The University’s campus network, student laboratories, classroom presentation systems, and other technologies used by faculty and students are supported by this fee. PASSHE established the 2008-2009 technology fee at $90.50 per semester for full time state residents and $136.50 for non-resident students. The table below displays the annual University revenue generated from these fees since 2002.

Annual Revenue Generated by Academic and Technology Fees 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Academic Enhancement Fee

$2,792,972 $3,466,345 $3,824,595 $3,961,055 $4,311,817 $4,499,822 $4,661,870

Technology Fee N/A $ 803,804 $ 880,245 $ 885,429 $1,133,912 $1,158,682 1,600,262 Total $2,792,972 $4,270,149 $4,704,840 $4,846,484 $5,445,729 $5,658,504 $6,262,132

Source: Exhibit 13 - Bloomsburg University Annual Financial Report (FINRPT) The fees have allowed the University to continuously improve its technology infrastructure. For example, wireless internet access has been made available in all academic buildings and modern presentation systems have been installed in all appropriate classrooms. The University Technology Plan is reviewed each year by the Dean’s Council, the University wide technology committee, and the individual college level technology committees. Once every five years the Office of Technology, as part of its self-review, does a thorough assessment of the progress made toward attaining the Technology Plan’s goals and objectives. At approximately the same interval, the overall technology plan undergoes a complete review and revision. Technology Library The Harvey A. Andruss Library has the largest number of public computers of any academic building on campus, approximately 240. Of that total, 38 are dedicated to instructional use, 10 are dedicated to specialized academic software, 14 are restricted for searching the library catalog and other University web sites, 2 are CD-Rom networked computers, and the rest are for general purpose use. In addition, local community members who apply for a free “Pennsylvania Resident Borrower’s Card” have access to the Library’s resources. The Library provides access to extensive electronic resources including approximately 135 electronic databases, approximately 46,000 electronic periodicals, and a growing digital collection that is unique to the University and local community. To facilitate research, the Library has implemented an OpenURL link resolver (Article Linker), a federated search program (Discovery Search), and a bibliographic management program (RefWorks). In addition, the

15

Library offers an online interlibrary loan system, a course reserve system for electronic documents, and online reference help. Most of the electronic resources are also available off-campus, via the internet, to authorized users. In addition to having approximately 482 thousand print holdings, the Library has 2.1 million micro-text documents, over 13 thousand electronic items, and subscribes to over 30 newspapers and 1,700 periodicals. To support the large collection of non-print holdings, the Library maintains a variety of mechanical and electronic reading and playback devices. Classrooms and Laboratories In addition to those in the Library, there are 1237 computers in laboratories, classrooms, and other specialized learning spaces on campus. The technology fee funded 301 of the computers; the academic enhancement fee funded the remaining 936. Faculty/Staff Computers There are a total of 1140 computers assigned to faculty and staff. They are funded through academic enhancement fees and replaced on a staggered 4 year life cycle. Classroom Presentation Systems There are currently 136 classrooms or laboratories on campus that are equipped with presentation systems. There are an additional 28 classrooms that contain no presentation systems because they have constricting physical characteristics such as: size, sight lines, ceiling height, or permanent furniture configurations. Although there are no formal specifications for the classroom presentation systems there is considerable standardization of design and functionality. Servers The University currently maintains 68 servers. There are 34 servers dedicated to academic uses, 22 to administrative functions, and 12 that serve a combined role. Scientific Equipment The original cost of existing scientific equipment is approximately $2,500,000. The vast majority of all new scientific equipment purchases are currently funded through Student Academic Enhancement Fees. The College of Science and Technology receives approximately $230,000 of those funds annually, which is shared by six departments. As a result, each department can acquire only one or two pieces of new equipment a year. Faculty members who desire specialized equipment to conduct research are encouraged to seek funding from external sources through grants and donations.

16

Life Cycle Replacement All academic technology systems or devices are part of a formal life cycle replacement plan. Administrative systems or devices are also on a formal replacement plan. The following table outlines the life cycle replacement plan.

Source: Exhibit 14 - Bloomsburg University Office of Technology Self-Review 2008. Note: During the 2007-08 academic year the life cycle replacement plan was updated to include all assets of the University. Physical Resources In the 1990’s PASSHE developed a comprehensive program to define institutional space requirements at the 14 state-owned universities. That program currently requires each university to prepare an annual space utilization report, as well as statistics to evaluate current space needs. Based on the data submitted, guideline facilities space requirements are calculated utilizing formulas derived from space utilization categories in the U.S Department of Education’s Postsecondary Education Facilities Inventory and Classification Manual. The table on the following page compares the University’s current inventory of physical space with the PSAAHE calculated guideline. The table shows a current need for additional facilities space in several categories. This problem is being addressed through facilities planning efforts both in the University Facilities Master Plan [Exhibit 16] and in the State of Pennsylvania Commonwealth Capital Project Plan. The Facilities Master Plan presents a vision for facilities expansion that addresses several of the space shortfalls. That vision is being implemented through the capital project planning process which is monitored by the Space and Facilities Sub-committee of the Planning and Budget Committee.

Bloomsburg University Life Cycle Replacement Plan The Academic life cycle plan includes 1. Faculty computers-four year cycle

2. Staff computers-four year cycle 3. General, library and departmental classroom or lab computers 4. Classroom Presentation Systems-three or four year cycle 5. Software licensing-renewal date 6. Scientific and other laboratory equipment

The Administrative life cycle plan includes

1. Staff computers 2. Mainframe computer-eight year cycle 3. Software licensing-renewal date

The Network and Infrastructure plan includes

1. Staff computers 2. All Servers 3. Routers, switches and other edge devices 4. Wireless access points 5. Software licensing-renewal date

17

Educational and General Facilities Space Requirements Review

Type of Space Current Space (square feet)

Space Guideline (square feet)

Excess/Shortfall (square feet)

Unclassified 6,105 0 6,105 Classroom 78,593 98,016 -19,423 Teaching Laboratory 100,576 130,800 -30,224 Research/Non Class Laboratory 17,123 17,160 -37 Office/Conference Room 181,745 174,744 7,001 Study 73,600 104,834 -31,234 Athletic or Physical Education 41,961 89, 066 -47,105 Athletic Spectator Seating 7,123 7,123 0 Athletic/Physical Education Service 20,167 46,066 -25,899 Media Production 7,719 8,011 -292 Clinic 4,823 3,204 1,619 Animal Quarter 1,050 1,602 -552 Greenhouse 2,261 4,006 -1,745 Assembly 31,109 61,416 -30,307 Exhibition 8,517 8,486 31 Day Care 3,879 3,879 0 Lounge/Merchandising 7,189 9,535 -2,346 Meeting Room 8,815 8,011 804 Support 66,690 82,994 -16,304 Utility Production 26,657 26,657 0 Health Care 1,854 17,033 -15,179 House 7,299 5,000 2,299 Total Education and General 704,855 907,643 -202,788

Auxiliary Facilities Space Requirement Review

Office/Conference Room 3,488 3,488 0 Study 510 510 0 Food Facility 50,032 80,874 -30,842 Lounge/Merchandising and Service 17,957 17,957 0 Recreation 68,554 63,313 5,241 Meeting Rooms 2,508 2,508 0 Residential Facilities 467,707 613,125 -145,418 Student Union 49,623 80,110 -30,487 Total Auxiliary Facilities 660,379 861,885 -201,506

Source: Exhibit 15 – PASSHE, Bloomsburg University Space Guideline Fiscal Year 2008-2009. Solving the shortage of classroom, student housing, and faculty space is an ongoing priority at the University. Several projects have been completed during the last five years to help address space deficiencies. For example, facilities containing primarily teaching and research laboratories were added to the Hartline Science Center; a classroom addition was completed for the McCormick Center for Human Services; and administrative space was converted to academic space in Ben Franklin Hall. Additional efforts to address space shortfalls are on-going. A project to renovate and expand the Haas Center for the Arts is expected to be completed in January 2009. A project to renovate the

18

Nelson Field House has recently received funding. This project will alleviate some of the need for additional space for exercise science and athletics. Likewise, a project is expected to be funded in 2009-10 that will add classroom and laboratory space to the Sutliff Hall classroom building. The Commonwealth funds renovation of existing structures at the University and partially funds certain new construction projects through the Commonwealth Capital Project Program. The following table shows the projects funded by that program since 2000.

Commonwealth Capital Project Program Funding Project Title Funding Year Commonwealth Funding

Hartline Science Center Addition 2000-01 $6,806,000 Navy Hall Renovation 2001-02 $4,350,000 Ben Franklin Renovation 2003-04 $7,520,000 McCormick Classroom Addition 2004-05 $2,725,000 Hass Renovation 2005-06 $5,920,000 Bakeless Renovation 2006-07 $5,000,000 Nelson Field House Renovation 2007-08 $15,500,000

A housing market study completed in 2006 by the firm Anderson Strickler, LLC [Exhibit 17] found that University residence hall usage in fall 2005 was at 109 percent of recommended capacity and that there was an unmet need for on-campus student housing of between 385 and 761 beds. In response to this report, a project to construct an additional apartment complex on the upper campus with 544 new student beds was developed and construction is expected to be completed in August 2009. Sightline Benchmarks In 2007 PASSHE contracted with the firm, Sightlines, to benchmark facilities related issues at all 14 PASSHE universities [Exhibit 18]. The study found that the University’s physical resources compare favorably to the other institutions and that the financial commitment to facilities maintenance is strong and producing good results. The Sightlines study also confirmed that the University has a relatively small amount of building space for the size of the campus population. The University has the third highest number of users per gross square footage of building space for all PASSHE universities. Consequently its facilities are used at a higher rate than the other institutions. Despite that higher usage rate, the Sightlines study indicated that the University’s facilities are in good condition. The Sightlines study inspected all PASSHE campuses and scored the campuses for building maintenance, custodial, and grounds maintenance. The University had the second highest combined maintenance score of all PASSHE institutions. A contributing factor to that score is the investment the University makes in supporting the daily maintenance needs of the facilities. The Sightlines study found that the University ranked fourth in the system for both maintenance expenditures per square foot of space, and available staff for custodial duties, daily maintenance and grounds maintenance.

19

Another contributing factor to the quality of the facilities is the investment that is being made in one-time capital projects. For the period from 2003 to 2007, the University had the second largest total investment in facilities among PASSHE institutions as measured by funds expended per gross square foot. The vast majority of that spending was on one-time capital improvement projects The following table summarizes the University’s major capital projects completed since 2002.

Completed Capital Projects Over $500,000

Funding Source Project Description Total Capitalized

Costs – Completed Projects

Date Completed Funding Allocation (if any)

Auxiliary Replace Roofs at SC,SRH,& MRH $ 762,529.28 Sep-03 E&G Tri-Level Repair Phase II 1,250,933.97 Oct-03 E&G Carver Tower Repair 672,168.74 Jan-04 Appropriation Buckalew Renovations 556,351.22 Apr-04

Bond Sprinkler III (bond) 1,715,445.69 Jun-04 Bond - $1,663,173.01, Aux - $52,272.68

Bond Sprinkler II (bond) 1,228,292.14 Jun-04 Bond - $1,124,961.62, Aux - $103,330.52

Auxiliary SC - Design for Lower Level 522,422.86 Jun-04

Bond/Auxiliary Monty's Renovation 4,770,617.36 Aug-04 Bond - $4,028,842.64, Aux - $741,774.72

AFRP Hartline Renovation (AFRP) 3,158,918.94 Jun-05 Bond Hartline Renovation 801,105.70 Jun-05 E&G / Parking Upper Campus Warehouse Parking 838,664.28 Jan-06

Bond/E&G Tennis Court Construction 1,878,599.57 Apr-06 Bond - $1.508.530.25, E&G - $370,069.32

Key '93 Bakeless HVAC (Arch./Eng. Fees) 1,136,294.38 May-06 Auxiliary 7 Hall Entrance/ADA Up-Grades 2,378,284.18 Jul-06

Bond/E&G Convert Tennis Courts to Parking 988,989.77 Jul-06 Bond - $825,152.40, E&G - $163,837.37

Bond/Auxiliary Student Recreation Center Expansion 4,069,535.84 Aug-06 Bond - $3,585,785.50, Aux - $483,750.34

E&G Artificial Turf Field 1,559,798.22 Aug-06 E&G McCormick Addition-Site work 687,670.93 Oct-06 E&G Ben Franklin/Navy Plaza 1,316,220.09 Dec-06 Auxiliary North Residence Hall Bathroom Renovation 530,386.28 Apr-07

E&G/Aux/Aramark Student Services Center Renovation 2,406,833.67 Aug-07 E&G - $833,970.04, Aux - $1,451,793.87, Aramark - $121,069.76

E&G Academic Quad 2,654,974.58 Oct-07 E&G McCormick Classroom Addition 2,838,536.71 Nov-07 E&G Ben Franklin Conversion 525,998.96 Dec-07 E&G Magee Center Renovation - Flood Damage Feb-08 1,018,897.84 Total Completed Capitalized Projects over $500,000 $40,268,471.20

Funding Source Project Description Total Assets Under Construction – 2008

E&G Redman Stadium Renovation $ 2,800,854.20 Auxiliary Montour Bathroom Renovations 1,206,215.45 Auxiliary MPA Central A/C & Heating 1,063,264.02 Bond Upper Campus Apt. Complex 4,946,456.66 Total Assets Under Construction Projects over $500,000 $10,016,790.33

20

The results of the Sightlines comparative study were not all positive. An area that needs attention is the annual stewardship investment the University makes in renovations other than large capital projects or daily maintenance. The intent of this funding area is to ensure that facilities, especially those recently renovated, stay at an acceptable maintenance level. The University is currently funding those needs at a rate well below the PASSHE average. A contributing factor to the relatively low annual stewardship funding is the absence of annual budgeting for education and general facilities maintenance. While auxiliary facilities are required to annually budget 2.25 percent of a building’s value for the upkeep of the facility, there is no corresponding budgeting process for education and general facilities. Traditionally, funding for maintaining these facilities has come from the annual transfer of excess funds into the university’s plant fund. This process is unreliable and does not address the continual need for facilities stewardship. Philanthropic Resources The Bloomsburg University Foundation The Bloomsburg University Foundation, Inc. is an independent 501(c) (3) corporation established to raise and distribute private philanthropic funds on behalf of Bloomsburg University. The Foundation determines its funding priorities based on direction from the University. The University has entered into an agreement to contribute $200,000 annually to the Foundation to help fund its operating expenses and to provide other non-reimbursed staff and logistical support. That agreement ends June 30, 2009. The Foundation’s fundraising efforts are driven by the University’s mission, strategic plan, and capital campaign priorities. Priority is always given to soliciting unrestricted gifts which can be utilized as needed by the University. If the donor wishes to support a more narrow area of interest, such as a department or specific program, the staff will encourage options that are based on the university’s strategic plan and other priorities that have been established by the University’s Trustees, the President and senior administrators. The Executive Director of the Foundation meets with the President and senior administrators annually to determine the allocation of available unrestricted funds. Some programs, such as Margin of Excellence and the Alumni programs, represent on-going commitments, while other activities may be targeted differently each year depending on the University’s current priorities. For all restricted funds, the primary objective is to ensure that the funds are used according to the donor’s wishes. Accordingly, the Foundation has an Audit and Corporate Oversight Committee which monitors all fiscal activities of the organization. Management of the Foundation’s assets is in accordance with sound business practices and involves guidance from professional fund managers. Because the Foundation seeks to be supportive of the University indefinitely, all investment strategies are designed to ensure the long term fiscal health of its endowments. In addition, investments are designed to be supportive of

21

the University’s short and long-term educational goals. This includes conducting periodic reviews of spending policies and portfolio allocations to adjust for prevailing financial market conditions. The Foundation’s spending policies are based on the change in market value of the endowed accounts, including scholarships, during the previous fiscal year. A percentage of the increase is made available to fund specific programs and activities in any given year. The policy is designed to utilize income generated from the endowed funds while protecting and growing the endowed principal. For fiscal year 07-08, the spending policy was set at 4 percent of fund balance. The Foundation’s annual payments to the University are presented in the following table.

At the end of the 07-08 fiscal year, the Foundation’s assets totaled $14.3 million [Exhibit 8]. Approximately 80 percent of the assets are permanently restricted. Office of Development Although the Foundation is active in fundraising, the University also has an Office of Development. This office is housed within the University, and is not part of the Foundation. Many of the annual scholarship and general fundraising activities are conducted by this office. All funds generated by the office are deposited with, and managed by, the Foundation. The University’s combined philanthropic efforts are presented in the following table.

As the table above indicates, the University’s efforts to secure philanthropic income have enjoyed moderate success over the past several years. For instance, during the 07-08 fiscal year the number of individual donors increase by 19 percent and the annual fund raising drive generated approximately $775,000.

Foundation Annual Support To The University FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 Program Support – Scholarships $ 455,522 $ 397,387 $ 444,474 $ 545,805 $ 602,270 Program Support – Academics/Library 155,296 182,976 273,872 289,740 143,065 Program Support – Administrative/Other 147,507 145,299 171,798 412,228 250,417 Program Support – Alumni Programs 165,352 150,025 141,594 165,401 160,052 Program Support – Athletics 125,851 56,334 121,314 64,513 30,849 Program Support – Development Program 151,556 294,356 244,655 277,601 418,731 Total University Support $1,201,084 $1,226,377 $1,397,707 $1,755,288 $1,605,384

Bloomsburg University Philanthropic Income FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 Development Office and Foundation $ 888,939 $1,902,219 $1,772,711 $1,833,338 $1,877,519 Other Contributions 1,568,297 1,671,420 1,886,055 2,223,044 2,736,681 Total Philanthropic Income $2,457,236 $3,573,639 $3,658,766 $4,056,382 $4,614,200

22

The primary sources of the University’s philanthropic income are:

Development Office and Bloomsburg University Foundation Contributions

Other University Contributions

• Annual Fund Programs • Personal Contacts • Estate Gifts • In-kind Donations • Other

• Scholarships • Grants – excluding state and federal • Athletic Camp Proceeds • Other

The Husky Research Corporation The Husky Research Corporation, Inc. is a non-profit organization that began operations in 2003. It was established to support the educational and research activities of the University. The Corporation submits grant proposals on behalf of, and with the approval of, Bloomsburg University and serves as a fiscal agent for grants and contracts that require more administrative flexibility than can be provided by the University. The Corporation also administers contracts that support the clinical activities of the University’s health education programs such as the Speech and Hearing Clinic. These clinics provide students with an essential clinical experience and operate as low cost health resources for the local community. These activities are structured to be not-for-profit but fees are charged to cover the costs of operations. The Corporation does not engage in fundraising activities. Funds received by the Corporation are generated by grants and contracts that support the educational and research mission of the University. To date, the Corporation has negotiated over $1,200,000 in grants and contracts for the University. Recommendations

Recommendation 2: A clear organizational structure needs to be defined between the Bloomsburg University Foundation and the University Office of Development.

Justification

• The organization chart needs to depict clear lines of communication between the two entities.

• The roles and responsibilities of the Foundation Executive Director and the Foundation Staff relative to the Assistant Vice-President of University Relations and the Development Staff need to be clearly defined.

23

Process

The current organizational structure does not define clear communication links between the Office of Development and the Foundation. This creates confusion regarding fund raising responsibilities within the two groups and potential contributors often receive conflicting responses to inquiries.

The current organizational structure does not represent the norm for universities in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. This structure was adopted three years ago and needs to be reviewed and compared to other organizational structures in use at other universities to determine if improvements can be made.

Recommendation 3: A percentage of the annual budget should be assigned for the upkeep of academic and general purpose facilities.

Justification

• There is no current line item in the budget for upkeep of academic and general purpose buildings at the University.

• Funding for upkeep of these facilities is uncertain, relying primarily on the generation of annual operating surpluses that can be transferred to the plant fund.

Process The current funding process does not identify a clear level of annual funding for the maintenance of academic and general purpose facilities. Historically, the University has been able to generate sufficient surpluses to fund virtually all of the capital renovations and additions in its facilities master plan as well as to fund needed capital repairs. However, this level of fiscal strength can not be guaranteed to continue indefinitely. The University needs to include a line item in the annual general fund budget for academic and general purpose facilities maintenance. The amount of annual funding could be set as a percentage of the total value of the academic and general purpose facilities, similar to what is currently being done with the auxiliary facilities.

24

CHAPTER FOUR

LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE, ADMINISTRATION, INTEGRITY, AND FACULTY

Standards 4, 5, 6, & 10

The Middle States Commission on Higher Education statements regarding the standards discussed in this chapter are:

Standard 4: Leadership and Governance

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.

Standard 5: Administration

The institution’s administrative structure and services facilitate learning and research/scholarship, foster quality improvement, and support the institution’s organization and governance.

Standard 6: Integrity

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 for academic and intellectual freedom.

Standard 10: Faculty

The institution’s instructional, research, and service programs are devised, developed, monitored, and supported by qualified professionals.

Methodology A twelve member working group was assigned to review the University’s leadership and governance, administration, integrity, and faculty. The review included examination of the University’s governance documents, union contracts, employee statistics, and selected policies and procedures.

25

Analysis Bloomsburg University is one of fourteen universities that comprise the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE). The system is governed by a 20 member Board of Governors. The board appoints the individual presidents of the 14 PASSHE universities. Each system university has its own Council of Trustees. The Bloomsburg University Council of Trustees is composed of ten community and business leaders and one student representative. All of the members are appointed by the Governor. The Chancellor of PASSHE also serves as an ex-officio member of the Council. It is the Council’s responsibility to carry out the policies of the PASSHE Board of Governors and work with the University’s President to resolve local issues as they arise. University Governance The philosophy behind the University’s governance structure can be summarized from the first paragraph of the preface to the Bloomsburg University Forum document [Exhibit 19].

The governance structure at Bloomsburg University is founded on the principle that academic concerns, guided by a curriculum developed by the faculty, are the basis of our institution and that the student is the focus of the resulting educational program. This governance model acknowledges our strengths and traditions and our collective bargaining agreements. We recognize the propriety interests, rights, and responsibilities of the various university constituencies. Foremost, we are sensitive to the value of open communication in our university community.

The University President is the chief executive officer. His direct subordinate is the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs who is the chief academic officer at the institution. In addition, the University’s Organization Chart [Exhibit 20] depicts a series of vice presidents, deans, and other administrative officers who are responsible for daily operations. Various members of the management team also serve on the three advisory groups to senior management. The three groups are; Executive Staff, Dean’s Council, and President’s Advisory Council [Exhibit 21]. University Committees As an institution that practices participatory governance, the University has several standing committees that report to and advise the institution’s executive management team. The primary standing committees are:

• The Forum • Bloomsburg University Curriculum Committee • Planning and Budget Committee • Student Life Committee • General Administration Committee

26

Forum The Forum is composed of 70 members representing the faculty, students, staff, and administration [Exhibit 19]. The function of the Forum is to: review and discuss present and proposed university policies, procedures, and issues; raise concerns; indicate degrees of consensus or otherwise; and facilitate communication and disseminate information. No new policy can go into effect without a formal review by the Forum except for academic policies passed by the Bloomsburg University Curriculum Committee (BUCC) or the Planning and Budget Committee. The Forum is not an amending body but it may recommend policy changes before implementation. All chairs of the other institution-wide standing committees provide informational reports at each session of the Forum and, if appropriate, present proposed policy changes for review. The Forum meets at least twice a semester and all meetings are open to the public. All faculty, staff, managers, and students are encouraged to attend the meetings, participate in discussions, bring up issues during open forum, and participate in straw votes. At the October 10, 2007 meeting, the Chair of the Forum led a discussion of the role of the Forum in University governance [Exhibit 22]. Although some members thought the Forum lacked authority because it was only a recommending body, many delegates felt that concerns raised during the meetings were heard and taken seriously. The discussion generated requests for fewer data-intensive reports, more representatives from the senior faculty within each academic department, and fewer meetings. Bloomsburg University Curriculum Committee (BUCC) The BUCC is composed of 14 voting members, 10 faculty members chosen via faculty election, and 1 faculty representative from each of the four college curriculum committees [Exhibit 23]. In addition, there are 2 undergraduate students, 1 graduate student, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the president’s designee, all of whom serve as ex-officio members. The BUCC is responsible for acting upon curricular proposals at the institution-wide level. It also serves as a coordinating committee for curricular proposals emanating from all components of the academic community, and serves as a faculty advisory committee to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs on recommendations for improving the curriculum at the University. The committee’s formal recommendations are forwarded to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs for review and implementation. Curricular proposals that involve establishment of new programs and/or degrees must ultimately be approved by the Bloomsburg University Council of Trustees (PRP 3200 – Program Approval) [Exhibit 24] and the PASSHE Board of Governors. All BUCC meetings are open to the entire campus community. Each semester, the committee also schedules a special meeting devoted strictly to the discussion of curricular concerns that are initiated by members of the University community.

27

Planning and Budget Committee The Planning and Budget Committee is composed of 19 members representing faculty, staff, students, the various collective bargaining units, and administrators [Exhibit 25]. The committee is co-chaired by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and the local APSCUF (faculty) union president. The committee operates with the philosophy that the academic priorities of the University shall determine facilities planning, financial planning, and other administrative processes. Accordingly, the committee places its emphasis on the strategic elements of planning and budgeting, focusing primarily on the basic mission of the University, the clientele to be served by the University, the major goals and objectives to be pursued, specific programmatic priorities of the University, and the means by which the University seeks to differentiate itself from other institutions. The Planning and Budget Committee has three standing sub-committees; the Budget Subcommittee, the Enrollment Management Steering Committee, and the Space and Facilities Subcommittee. Student Life Committee The Student Life Committee is composed of 18 voting members and the Vice President for University and Student Affairs, who serves as an ex-officio non-voting member [Exhibit 26]. The committee is made up of 7 student members, 4 faculty members, and 7 student life professionals. The purpose of the committee is to develop and review policies and advise the Vice President for University and Student Affairs on student life issues. General Administration Committee The General Administration Committee is composed of 12 voting members and the Vice President for Administration and Finance, who serves as an ex-officio non-voting member [Exhibit 27]. The committee is composed of 5 faculty members, 2 undergraduate students, 2 staff members, and 3 administrators. The purpose of the committee is to initiate, review, and recommend administrative policies and procedures derived from all components of the University and/or referred by the Vice President for Administration and Finance. Faculty representation on all standing committees is determined by university-wide elections held at the beginning of each academic year. The by-laws of all standing committees are written to ensure that the broadest possible faculty representation is attained within the constraints of each committee’s overall size. Committee members representing other constituencies on campus are either elected or appointed based on the specific committee’s by-laws. The standing committees discussed previously, along with numerous task forces, sub-committees, and temporary committees, several of which have been referred to throughout this report, allow for broad representation of all campus constituencies in the decision making process on campus. Virtually every administrative decision of any consequence that is made at

28

the University is vetted by one or more committees and a formal recommendation is submitted to the administrator responsible for making the decision. However, authority for final decisions resides within the administration. Collective Bargaining Agreements With the exception of management, all employees at the University are covered under a collective bargaining agreement [Exhibit 28]. The following unions are represented on campus:

• AFSCME – American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees • APSCUF – Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties • OPEIU – Office of Professional Employees International Union Healthcare Pennsylvania • SCUPA – State College and University Professional Association • SPFPA – Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America

Virtually every aspect of the employees’ and employer’s rights and obligations are clearly defined within the various union contracts and there are formal and informal processes for resolution of any contractual disputes that may arise. The processes range from meetings between union representatives and senior administrators where concerns are discussed informally, to formal grievance processes that may ultimately be resolved via arbitration. For example, the APSCUF contract defines the terms and conditions of most interactions that occur between the faculty and the administration, including faculty reviews, tenure and promotion, and searches for new faculty. The terms of the contract also apply to all part-time and adjunct faculty. In addition, APSCUF negotiates a separate contract on behalf of the coaching staff. Senior Management The University President, Provost, Vice Presidents, Deans, and managers are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, PASSHE has developed a series of policies that identify the rights and responsibilities of these individuals. The main policies [Exhibit 29] are:

• Policy 1984-14-A: Terms and Conditions of Employment of Senior Policy Executives • Policy 2002-02: Duties and Responsibilities of Presidents • Policy 2002-03: Evaluating Presidents

In addition to these policies, Policy 1983-01-A: Merit Principles [Exhibit 30] establishes general personnel policies for all permanent employees who are not specifically covered by a collective bargaining agreement or are excluded by the policy or a side letter of exemption. These employees must also receive an annual performance evaluation in compliance with Policy 1985-07-A: Management Performance and Reward Program [Exhibit 31]. As part of that review each manager must submit an updated list of professional goals and objectives [Exhibit 32]. Collectively, these policies define the terms of employment for senior management at the University.

29

Personnel The University’s greatest asset is its personnel. Most of the men and women who work at the University, regardless of their positions or job descriptions, are proud to be part of the institution’s staff. Because of the University’s excellent compensation and benefits packages it is one of the most desirable organizations to work for in the region. Accordingly, the University attracts excellent faculty and staff. Turnover, when it occurs, is most often due to retirement. Worker pride is apparent throughout the campus. The evidence of this pride ranges from how well the staff maintain the buildings and grounds to the quality of service that students, parents, and other visitors receive when they interact with University personnel. The following table provides basic demographic information about the full-time workforce at the University.

Full-Time Employees, Fall Semester Gender 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Men 458 470 461 454 460 461 461 471 Women 405 402 413 415 421 422 442 461 Total Employees 863 872 874 869 881 883 903 932 Employment Category Exec./Admin./Manager 36 36 34 36 32 33 32 33 Faculty 381 386 377 378 379 383 395 408 Other Professional 116 119 123 128 130 125 126 141 Clerical/Secretarial 124 125 134 135 142 142 149 149 All other support staff 206 206 206 192 198 200 201 201 Total 863 872 874 869 881 883 903 932

Racial Category Black, non-Hispanic 30 30 30 32 28 32 33 40 Asian/Pacific Islander 25 27 29 32 30 31 32 33 Hispanic 11 10 10 11 10 11 11 11 Native Americans 2 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 White, non-Hispanic 795 803 804 794 813 808 825 845 Total 863 872 874 869 881 883 903 932

Sources: Exhibit 33 - Bloomsburg University, Office of Institutional Research, Faculty/Staff Data,

Full-Time Employees, Fall Semesters 1998 through 2007. Overall, there has been an 8 percent growth in the number of employees since 2000. The largest rates of growth have been in the other professional and clerical/secretarial categories. Most of the growth in those areas has occurred in positions that provide direct services to students. The faculty also grew 7 percent since 2000 while the number of senior administrators declined 9 percent as a result of a series of structural reorganizations. The decisions regarding increases in faculty positions are made through a formal planning and assessment process described in Exhibit 34. The growth in personnel has been dictated by the increase in the size of the student body. However, despite the increase in the size of the physical plant, there has been a decline in the number of support staff in the skilled craft and technical areas.

30

The University has worked hard to increase the number of women and historically under- represented classes of individuals entering the campus workforce. The number of women has grown to just under 50 percent of the total staff and, because of an aggressive recruiting program, hiring of other historically underrepresented classes of individuals has begun to show a marked increase. Seasonal employees are hired when there is a short term need for additional personnel. However, the vast majority of the workforce is full-time employees who have worked for the institution for several years. The University is able to maintain a stable workforce because it has experienced growing enrollment levels and is in a strong financial position. The following table shows the ratio of students to faculty and to all remaining staff.

Student to Faculty/Staff Ratios Ratio 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Students to Faculty 19.0 19.5 20.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 20.0 Students to staff 13.8 14.7 14.4 14.7 14.4 14.8 14.9 14.7

As the table above indicates, the ratio of students to both the faculty and the remaining staff grew slightly through 2003. However, at that point, the ratios stabilized and have recently begun to decline as the University has hired additional faculty and staff to service the annual increase in enrollment. Most of the permanent employees have worked at the University for several years. The following table summarizes employee service.

Permanent Employees – Length of Service Length of Service 0-5 6-15 16-25 26-30 31-35 36 Plus Percent of Employees 34.9% 34.5% 22.9% 5.5% 1.7% .5%

The fact that the University has such a stable workforce creates a sense of community not just for the workforce but also for the students and alumni. Many alumni are pleasantly surprised when they return to campus and see faculty and staff who befriended them when they were students. Faculty The University has a strong and vibrant faculty who are dedicated to the University and its students. Most faculty are initially attracted to the University because of the strong compensation and benefits package they receive. However, they choose to stay because of the sense of collegiality and community they experience on campus, combined with a local community that provides an excellent environment in which to raise their families.

31

The following table shows the composition of the faculty by rank and gender.

Full-Time Faculty - Fall Semester 2007 Total Faculty Professors Associate

Professors Assistant

Professors Instructors

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Men 236 58% 92 73% 64 60% 70 49% 10 29% Women 172 42% 34 27% 43 40% 71 51% 24 71% Total 408 100% 126 100% 107 100% 141 100% 34 100%

Sources: Exhibit 35 - Bloomsburg University, Office of Institutional Research, Faculty/Staff Data,

Full-Time Faculty, Fall Semesters 1998 through 2007. The University has undergone a dramatic shift in the composition of its faculty over the last decade. Many of the faculty who were hired during the University’s period of rapid expansion in the 1970’s have retired. As demonstrated by the increased percentage of women in the entry level academic ranks, the University has been able to use the retirements to develop a more gender equitable faculty. Since many of the retiring faculty did not possess doctorates, it has also allowed the University to dramatically increase the number of faculty who have terminal degrees. By fall 2008 approximately 90 percent of the tenured/tenure track faculty possessed terminal degrees. The following table shows the tenure status of the full-time faculty.

Full-Time Faculty Tenured 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Men 178 178 173 163 160 155 157 157 Women 99 96 94 89 89 85 88 93 Total 277 274 267 252 249 240 245 250

Tenure-Track Men 41 44 43 50 48 53 58 68 Women 32 33 38 46 45 46 53 61 Total 73 77 81 96 93 99 111 129

Non Tenure-Track Men 14 20 13 15 22 19 21 11 Women 17 15 16 15 15 25 18 18 Total 31 35 29 30 37 44 39 29

Sources: Exhibit 35 - Bloomsburg University, Office of Institutional Research, Faculty/Staff Data,

Full-Time Faculty, Fall Semesters 1998 through 2007. The number of tenured faculty has declined due to retirements with a resultant increase in the number of newly hired tenure-track faculty. A temporary increase in non tenure-track faculty occurred while those new faculty searches were being conducted but returned to normal levels in 2007. The non tenure-track faculty are normally employed on an as-needed basis to fill faculty vacancies caused by retirements, sabbaticals, illness, and other approved extended faculty absences.

32

The following table displays the ethnic composition of the faculty.

Full-Time Faculty Racial Category 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Black, non-Hispanic 14 13 12 13 13 14 14 19 Asian/Pacific Islander 21 23 25 28 25 25 28 29 Hispanic 7 6 7 8 7 8 8 8 Native American 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 White, non-Hispanic 338 343 333 329 334 335 343 350 Total 381 386 377 378 379 383 395 408

Sources: Exhibit 33 - Bloomsburg University, Office of Institutional Research, Faculty/Staff Data,

Full-Time Employees, Fall Semesters 1998 through 2007. As can be seen in the table above, the overall number of historically underrepresented faculty has begun to rise and it is anticipated that this trend will continue into the future. The University has undertaken an aggressive recruitment campaign involving advertising in minority publications, attending minority faculty recruitment fairs, and making direct contacts with doctoral programs that historically graduate a significant number of minority students. Professional Development The University’s requirements for faculty tenure and promotion are communicated to new faculty several times during their probationary period [Exhibit 36]. As part of the process, the Teaching and Learning Enhancement Center, the Instructional Media Design Center, and the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs make available professional development support to all faculty members. Their support services are summarized in Exhibit 37. Ethical Practices The Bloomsburg University Harassment and Discrimination Policy, PRP 6814 [Exhibit 38], states that:

Central to the mission of Bloomsburg University is the establishment and maintenance of an environment in which the dignity and worth of all individuals within the institution community are respected. Therefore, it is the responsibility of each person on campus to respect the personal dignity of others and to demonstrate a basic spirit that precludes harassment and discrimination.

The University is committed to maintaining an environment in which the individual rights of every member of the academic community are protected. It is also committed to ensuring that all members of the institution behave in an ethical manner at all times. To ensure that these twin goals are met, the University has established several policies, rules and procedures (PRP). The most relevant policies [Exhibit 39] are:

• PRP 2060 – Americans with Disabilities Grievances • PRP 3407 – Student Responsibilities

33

• PRP 3512 – Academic Integrity Policy • PRP 3592 – Academic Grievance Procedure • PRP 3990 – Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Human Subjects Research • PRP 4020 – Student Harassment Policy and Procedure • PRP 4650 – Hazing Policy • PRP 4802 – Code of Conduct • PRP 4805 – Drug Policy • PRP 4810 – Alcoholic Beverage Policy • PRP 4842 – Campus Judicial Policy • PRP 4862 – Student Non-Academic Grievance Policy • PRP 6814 – Harassment and Discrimination Policy • PRP 6820 – Research Misconduct

All of these policies contain procedures to ensure that fair and impartial processes exist for identifying and resolving any breaches in moral and ethical conduct that may occur within the University community, including moral and ethical breaches that may occur during the conduct of research. The rules governing ownership of all intellectual property created by the faculty are covered separately by Article 39 of the APSCUF collective bargaining agreement [Exhibit 40]. All of the policies listed above provide formal procedures to expeditiously resolve any grievances that may be filed while simultaneously protecting the rights of all parties. All University policies, rules, and procedures can be viewed on the University’s web site at http://www.bloomu.edu/policies/. In addition, all employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement have a broad range of protections and obligations which have been negotiated as part of their union contract. Student Grievances PRP 3592 Academic Grievance Procedure [Exhibit 41] provides students with a mechanism to file complaints of alleged academic injustice(s) relating to grades and/or professional responsibilities as related to academic policies found in the University’s Policies, Rules, and Procedures (PRPs), and the Pilot (student handbook). Although the process is not a disciplinary hearing, the findings may lead to a disciplinary investigation or action under another University policy. The policy requires the student to make a good faith effort to resolve the issue with the instructor, department chair, or appropriate dean prior to filing a formal grievance. As the following table indicates, only a small number of formal grievances are filed each academic year.

Academic Grievances Filed Against Faculty Under PRP 3592 Academic Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Academic Grievances 2 1 6 4 3 5 6 7

34

Violation of Code of Conduct Approximately 55 percent of student violations of the University Code of Conduct are for alcohol. Many of the other violations occur because the student is under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident. This is in spite of an aggressive campus-wide alcohol awareness program that begins with freshman orientation in June and continues throughout the academic year. The following tables summarize student conduct incidents and sanctions for the past three academic years.

Student Conduct Incidents Violation Type Resolved Unresolved Total

05-06 06-07 07-08 05-06 06-07 07-08 05-06 06-07 07-08 Alcohol 436 381 454 68 104 116 504 485 570 Furnishing Alcohol 5 0 6 3 3 2 8 3 8 Drugs 31 37 36 6 10 8 37 47 44 Drugs – Selling/Trafficking 0 0 2 2 2 8 2 2 10 Academic Integrity 13 19 19 5 6 5 18 25 24 Classroom Behavior 3 1 2 0 0 0 3 1 2 Disorderly Conduct 102 63 82 33 39 31 135 102 113 Firearms/Weapons 17 7 4 1 2 0 18 9 4 Laws (Other) 37 31 112 28 76 37 65 107 149 Miscellaneous 47 74 64 17 13 14 64 87 78 Town Code - Disorderly Gatherings 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 Town Code - Disruptive Conduct 11 1 35 1 0 4 12 1 39 Town Code - Excessive Noise 2 4 5 0 5 1 2 9 6 Town Code - Fire Code 3 2 0 0 2 0 3 4 0 Town Code - Rubbish on Property 19 3 0 21 0 0 40 3 0 Totals 726 623 824 185 262 227 911 885 1051 On-campus Incidents 423 362 474 70 50 83 493 412 557 Off-campus Incidents 303 261 350 115 212 144 418 473 494 Totals 726 623 824 185 262 227 911 885 1051

Student Conduct Sanctions

Sanction On-Campus Incident Off-Campus Incident Total 05-06 06-07 07-08 05-06 06-07 07-08 05-06 06-07 07-08 Alcohol & Drug Probation Level I 204 181 206 145 135 189 349 316 395 Alcohol & Drug Probation Level II 40 17 20 40 28 13 80 45 33 Disciplinary Probation 30 39 27 10 13 19 40 52 46 Written Warning 45 55 112 62 34 64 107 89 176 Disciplinary Warning 42 30 28 13 28 28 55 58 56 Verbal Warning 6 2 2 4 0 3 10 2 5 Resolved w/o Sanction 22 24 55 3 9 11 25 33 66 Suspension 3 3 8 15 0 11 18 3 19 Deferred Suspension 8 1 3 6 10 8 14 11 11 Not Guilty 23 10 13 5 4 4 28 14 17 Open Discipline 20 11 25 30 22 28 50 33 53 Awaiting Court Hearing 2 1 10 34 93 38 36 94 48 Awaiting Court Appeal 6 0 0 1 5 4 7 5 4 Student Withdrawn/Graduated 36 32 48 38 84 74 74 116 122 Charges Withdrawn 6 6 0 12 8 0 18 14 0 Totals 493 412 557 418 473 494 911 885 1051

Source: Exhibit 42 – Bloomsburg University, Student Conduct Incidents and Sanctions.

35

Most minor first time offenses result in some form of warning. Most first time alcohol/drug offenses and other second time offenses result in some form of probation. Chronic offenders and individuals who commit severe offenses often receive suspension/expulsion or decide to withdraw from the University in order to avoid being sanctioned.

36

CHAPTER FIVE

INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING

Standards 7 & 14

The Middle States Commission on Higher Education statements regarding the standards discussed in this chapter are:

Standard 7: Institutional Assessment

The institution has developed and implemented an assessment process that evaluates its overall effectiveness in achieving its mission and goals and its compliance with accreditation standards.

Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning

Assessment of student learning demonstrates that, at graduation, or other appropriate points, the institution’s students have knowledge, skills, and competencies consistent with institutional and appropriate higher education goals.

Methodology A thirteen member working group was assigned to review institutional assessment and assessment of student learning. The review included examination of key University planning documents, departmental mission statements, outcome assessment files, course syllabi, interviews with key administrators, and surveys administered to faculty, staff and administrators. Analysis The University is committed to a culture of institutional assessment on campus. The institution’s goals are clearly articulated and processes to achieve those goals have been documented. The results are assessed annually to ensure that the planning process is: useful; cost-effective; accurate and truthful; and organized, systematized and sustained. Although less evolved than institutional assessment, assessment of student learning has become a part of the culture of the academic departments and the library during the last decade. Most of the recent changes to the academic program at the University can be traced to recommendations resulting from student assessment activities.

37

Strategic Planning and Assessment Cycle The University follows a prescribed planning and assessment process. The key elements of the process are:

• June: The University’s SAP results for the academic year just ended are submitted to the Office of the Chancellor at PASSHE.

• August: The University’s Strategic Plan and SAP results for the year just ended are

reviewed by the President’s Advisory Council and the Council of Trustees. • September: The SAP and University Strategic Plan results are reported to the University

Forum and the Planning and Budget Committee. The results are placed on the university web-site. Final budget decisions for the current academic year are reported to the Planning and Budget Committee.

• October: The vice presidents’ “responses to the Five-Year Reviews” are presented to the

Planning and Budget Committee and the President’s Advisory Council. • November: Evaluations of unit strategic plans for the next academic year are made by the

Planning and Budget Committee. • April: Individual Departmental Action Plans for new expenditures are presented to the

Planning and Budget Committee. The action plans are then prioritized and recommended to the president.

Guided by the Vision 2010 statement [Exhibit 43] and the various long range planning documents compiled by the University, each year, members of the senior management review the goals and objectives included in the strategic plan. Then, each academic and administrative department is responsible for reviewing their plan to accomplish the goals and objectives that fall within its area of responsibility. System Accountability Plan As part of the State System of Higher Education (PASSHE), the University is required to annually report on The System Accountability Plan (SAP). The details of this process, as well as the University’s performance results, are discussed in Chapter Three. University Strategic Plan The University is guided by its five year strategic plan, Vision 2010 [Exhibit 43], approved by the Council of Trustees in November, 2005. The plan identifies seven critical areas that need to be addressed: academic program directions; teaching and learning (including technology); student growth and development; enrollment planning; civil and inclusive community; the University as a state and regional resource; and optimization of fiscal resources, including fund raising. The strategic planning process

38

has also identified several specific goals under each critical area. Each of those goals has a number of objectives which contain approved implementation strategies and defined outcomes. The university’s goals are linked to, but are not limited to, the PASSHE Accountability Plan. Unit Strategic Plans Each vice presidential area has an annual unit outcomes assessment plan which stems from the University Strategic Plan. This includes individual departmental assessment plans. All plans include the identification of data and other information that is routinely needed for planning at all levels. The individual departmental strategic plans contain the specific goals and objectives to be accomplished, anticipated outcomes for students and the University, measurement methods and evaluation criteria to be employed, strategic indicators, learning outcomes, assessment methods, assessment plans, and action plans detailing funding required. The assessment plans created by the individual departments are subsequently reviewed at the dean/vice president level. Requests for additional resources to accomplish specific departmental goals are identified in the departmental strategic plans as Action Plans. Each request must be linked to the Unit and University strategic plans. During the budgeting process, those Action Plans compose a separate supplemental expense item and are funded to the extent possible. Other Plans Several other plans support the mission and goals of the University. They include the Technology Plan, the Facilities Master Plan, and the Enrollment Management Plan. Technology Plan The Technology Plan was initially written in 1994 and has been updated twice since then. The first two plans resulted in creation of a four-year replacement cycle for academic computer equipment on campus, development of a reliable network backbone, and development of a wireless system across the campus. The current (2006) version of the plan [Exhibit 12] was drafted by a campus-wide technology committee, reviewed by the President’s Advisory Council, presented to the University Forum, and disseminated to the campus community. It concentrates on enhancing user convenience and the infusion of technology into the classroom. The plan includes the development of strategies to furnish end users with both the training and support necessary to effectively utilize available University technology. Facilities Master Plan The original Facilities Master Plan [Exhibit 16] was created in 1999 in response to the need to have a coordinated plan for the use and expansion of the University’s physical plant. Since then

39

the plan has been continuously reviewed and updated by the Space and Facilities Sub-committee of the Planning and Budget Committee. The primary goals of the plan have been the effective use of available plant assets, building renovation and new construction, and the “greening” of the campus. Specific projects completed since 1999 are discussed in Chapter Three. Enrollment Management Plan The first Enrollment Management Plan was created in 1987 to ensure that the University would experience sustained enrollment levels for the foreseeable future. An Enrollment Management Steering Committee (EMSC) meets routinely to review and update the plan. With the anticipated decline in eligible high school graduates within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania after 2009, the work of the Steering Committee has been elevated to a prominent roll in the University’s planning processes. The EMSC, which reports to the Planning and Budget Committee, is divided into four subcommittees: the Data Collection and Analysis Subcommittee, which is charged with collecting and analyzing data relevant to the Strategic Enrollment Management Plan, including data related to the University’s enrollment goals, objectives, and benchmarks; the Recruitment Strategies Subcommittee, which is charged with identifying and monitoring recruitment strategies necessary to meet the University’s enrollment goals, objectives, and benchmarks; the Retention Strategies Subcommittee, which is charged with identifying and monitoring student retention strategies; and the Coordinating Subcommittee, which serves as the conduit to facilitate communication between the subcommittees and oversees the process of review and modification of the Plan. The current Enrollment Management Plan covers 2006-2011 [Exhibit 44] and is discussed in detail in Chapter Six. The table on the following page summarizes the University’s major institutional assessment plans. Office of Institutional Research The Office of Institutional Research serves as the primary repository of institutional data. It is responsible for the collection, analysis, and distribution of much of the data used in administrative planning and decision-making. The Office of Institutional Research serves as the main clearinghouse for data provided to PASSHE. In addition to compiling data, the office is responsible for ensuring that all quantitative information reported to external constituents is both accurate and consistent. The primary research document created and used by the Office of Institutional Research is the “Common Data Set” [Exhibit 45]. This is a collection of the data sets normally used by the University for external reporting purposes and internal decision making. Much of the descriptive data referenced in this report came from that and related data sets.

40

Institutional Assessment Plans

Assessment Plan Responsible Entity

Reviews and Disseminates Reports

Comments

System Accountability Performance Measures (SAP)

Bloomsburg University

PASSHE Board of Governors

State System mandated performance metrics that directly affect the total amount of State funding received by each university in the State System. Designed to facilitate continuous improvement and demonstrate accountability. SAP data supplied by the University is audited by PASSHE.

University Strategic Plan (Vision 2010)

Vice Presidents

Council of Trustees, Advisory Council, Planning and Budget, University Forum

Linked to SAP, but not limited by it. Updated yearly.

Unit Strategic Plans Vice Presidents

Council of Trustees, Advisory Council, Planning and Budget, University Forum

Linked to the University Strategic Plan. Updated yearly.

Technology Plan Assistant Vice-President for Information Technology and Library Services

Advisory Council, University Forum, College Technology Committees

Initial Plan created in 1994, was updated in 2002 and 2006.

Enrollment Management Plan Enrollment Management Steering Committee

Planning and Budget, President’s Advisory Council

Current 5-year plan created in 2006, this plan helps Bloomsburg University meet its own performance goals and those specified by SAP.

Facilities Master Plan Space and Facilities Committee

Advisory Council, University Forum, Planning and Budget

Created in 1999 to provide for continuous cohesive improvements in the physical nature of our campus.

The Office of Institutional Research also produces a wide variety of reports and studies that describe and analyze the University’s students, faculty, academic departments and colleges. These reports are prepared for groups as diverse as PASSHE, the Council of Trustees, the President and his Advisory Council, Vice-Presidents, Deans, the Planning and Budget Committee, the University Forum, and individual departments. University Outcomes Assessment Committee The Provost and Vie President for Academic Affairs is responsible for coordinating the assessment of student learning at the University. The university-wide surveys and tests that are administered as part of the assessment process are coordinated by the Associate Dean of Liberal

41

Arts, who reports directly to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs on all assessment matters. The University Outcomes Assessment Committee (UOAC) was created in May 1999 to assist the Associate Dean of Liberal Arts. The committee immediately began to look at ways to assess the general education program which is defined in PRP 3612 – General Education Requirements [Exhibit 46]. The committee ultimately recommended implementation of the Academic Profile Test, subsequently renamed the Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress Test (MAPP), which was developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS). The MAPP test was chosen because it is cost effective, easy to administer, provides national norm-referenced data, and is capable of measuring skill levels in reading, writing, mathematics, and critical thinking. The test includes 108 multiple choice questions divided between the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. The MAPP test is administered annually to members of the freshman and junior classes. The results are reported to the Bloomsburg University Curriculum Committee (BUCC), the Dean's Council, the University Forum, and other major stakeholders. Analysis of the 2008 MAPP results [Exhibit 47] indicates that the University’s freshmen scored below their peer groups in every category while the juniors scored at the same level or above in every category. The MAPP results indicate that freshmen enter the University with a lower level of knowledge in general subjects than students nationally. However, once they complete their general education core courses, their level of knowledge equals or exceeds all peer cohorts. The scores indicate that the University’s general education program is effective. A portion of the 2008 MAPP results appear in the table below. The general education curriculum is discussed in detail in Chapter Seven.

Source: Exhibit 47 – Bloomsburg University, MAPP Results 2008. Notes: The source document also contains the results for Associate’s Colleges and Baccalaureate

Level I and II Universities. Their scores were lower than the cohorts listed above. The total MAPP score is not the sum of the scores of the individual areas tested.

MAPP Results 2008 Master’s Institutions Doctoral I and II Bloomsburg University Freshmen Juniors Freshmen Juniors Freshmen Juniors

Scores Humanities 113.30 115.70 114.70 116.10 112.59 117.15 Social Sciences 112.10 114.40 113.50 114.80 110.41 115.24 Natural Sciences 113.60 115.90 114.90 116.00 112.65 117.37 Reading 116.60 119.50 118.10 119.90 115.08 120.78 Writing 113.30 115.10 114.70 115.30 112.57 115.41 Critical Thinking 109.60 112.10 111.20 112.40 108.13 113.75 Using Math Data 112.40 114.00 114.10 114.60 111.81 115.86 Total MAPP Score 438.90 447.50 445.00 449.10 434.03 452.48

42

In 2005, the University Outcomes Assessment Committee became inactive when the Assessment and Evaluation Task Force was formed. Assessment and Evaluation Task Force The University formed the Assessment and Evaluation Task Force (AETF) to enhance current assessment activities. Created in August 2005 by the Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs, the AETF was charged with developing a comprehensive assessment plan for all academic programs at Bloomsburg University. The AETF subsequently divided itself into several working subcommittees. Those subcommittees were: General Education Evaluations, General Education Goals, Departmental Assessment, and Academic Unit Plan Format. The Academic Unit Plan Format subcommittee initially contributed to the development of the template that is currently used to prepare the institution’s unit and department strategic plans. This group subsequently developed guidelines and a template for departments to follow when conducting 5-year reviews [Exhibit 48]. The purpose of the template is to create greater consistency in department 5-year reviews, thus facilitating easier comparison of data. The guidelines and template will be used for the first time during the 2008-09 academic year. The Departmental Assessment Subcommittee performed several important tasks. Initially, the subcommittee examined all of the University’s departmental outcomes assessment plans to determine what types of measures were actually being used. They concluded that many of the assessment measures were indirect in nature. They also deduced that many faculty members were unaware of the large number of direct assessment measures that are currently available. Armed with this new knowledge, in September 2006 the subcommittee arranged for Dr. Virginia Anderson, a noted speaker on the subject of conducting effective outcomes assessment activities, to conduct workshops on how to develop course-embedded direct measures of assessment. Simultaneously, the subcommittee developed a web site (http://library.bloomu.edu/oa/index.swf) that provides the University community with links to current assessment literature and related resources. The subcommittee also developed a proposal for enhancing assessment activities across the campus [Exhibit 49]. Their proposal is presented in the form of recommendations at the end of this chapter.

The two General Education Subcommittees conducted a series of focus groups with the faculty to determine their perceptions of what the University’s general education curriculum should include. Their work generated a list of General Education Learning Objectives [Exhibit 50] which the subcommittee considered necessary to provide a quality general education program at the University. The AETF finished its work in March 2008 and has been disbanded. In April 2008, the Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs created the General Education Task Force which will officially review and make recommendations for enhancing general education at the University. The new task force will build on much of the work already performed by the AETF.

43

The discussion of general education is continued in Chapter Seven. Assessment of Departments and Faculty The table on the following page summarizes several assessment activities that occur at regularly scheduled intervals. Each of these activities is designed to evaluate, on an on-going basis, a specific segment of the University Department and Program Strategic Plans As part of the annual strategic planning process, each department must submit a departmental strategic plan. Each academic department must include student learning outcomes assessment plans for all undergraduate and graduate degree programs it supervises. Each departmental strategic plan also specifies the data and other information that is to be used for assessment of student learning. Five Year Review of Departments In accordance with PASSHE policy, each academic and student life program must undergo a review on a five year cycle. This review requires an external consultant. Reports of these reviews are made to the Office of the Chancellor and the University Council of Trustees. Programs in the Administrative, Finance, and University Relations areas undergo more informal reviews on the same cycle. The vice presidents or their delegates must prepare written responses to all departmental reviews conducted in their areas of responsibility. PASSHE allows any program or department that is currently accredited by a nationally and/or internationally recognized accrediting body to substitute their reaccreditation activities for the five year review process. Faculty Reviews The collective bargaining agreement between APSCUF and PASSHE requires that each tenure track and adjunct faculty member must undergo a prescribed annual review. That review includes: annual peer classroom observations; standardized student evaluations each semester for all sections taught; and written evaluations from the Departmental Evaluation Committee, Department Chair, Dean, and the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. All tenured faculty must complete the same process once every five years. MAPP Test The MAPP test has been administered to a sample of the freshman and junior classes each year since the 2003-04 academic year. The test is discussed in detail in a previous section of this chapter.

44

Assessment of Departments and Faculty

Method Rational Reviews Comments

Department &Program Strategic Plans

Ensure that individual departments have goals, objectives, and strategies (Action Plans) related to the University’s goals and objectives.

Deans, Provost, Vice-Presidents, Planning and Budget

All departments provide a yearly report in a university specified format.

Five Year Review of Departments

PASSHE Policy 1986-04-A (amended 1991)

Assures deliberate attention to the quality of all academic and non-academic programs. Allows for program data to be used in University assessment reports. Allows for the strengths and weaknesses of individual programs to be assessed in a systematic fashion.

Deans, Provost, Vice-Presidents, Planning and Budget, PASSHE

Standard Template exists for five-year Review reports. Accredited programs may substitute their accreditation report for their five-year reports.

Yearly Reviews of Untenured Faculty and Five Year Review of Tenured Faculty

Ensures that faculty meet university standards for effective teaching, continuing scholarly growth and service to the university and community

Department Committee, Department Chair, College Dean, Provost

Includes peer observation reports, student evaluation summaries, and faculty vita.

Academic Profile and MAPP (ETS Provided Assessment Tools)

Assesses student proficiency in general education knowledge

BUCC, University Forum, Dean’s Council, Planning and Budget, Council of Trustees

Initiated in the 2003-2004 academic year and administered every year since then.

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

Measures student engagement and assesses how they spend their time between work, social life and academic studies.

BUCC, University Forum, Dean’s Council, Planning and Budget, Council of Trustees

Given in the 2005-2006 academic year and again in the 2007-2008 academic year.

Student Satisfaction Survey Measures student opinions regarding their experiences at the University

BUCC, University Forum, Dean’s Council, Planning and Budget, Council of Trustees

Given in the 2006-2007 academic year.

45

National Survey of Student Engagement The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) is administered to members of the freshman and senior classes on a biennial basis. The NSSE survey asks students to report the frequency with which they engage in activities that represent effective educational practices. Students also record their perceptions of the college environment associated with achievement, satisfaction and persistence. Then students self-assess their educational and personal growth since starting college. Finally, students provide information about their background, including age, gender, race or ethnicity, living situation, educational status, and major field. The survey gives the University a chance to measure numerous attributes and characteristics of the student body and benchmark them against students nationally [Exhibit 51]. Several responses in the 2008 survey were labeled as “statistically” different than the national response rate. However, large differences were found in only a few areas. Also, the freshmen’s responses deviated from national response rates four times as often as the seniors did. Two of the most striking differences were that the University’s seniors spent fewer hours working off campus each week and they spent less time providing care for dependents living with them. This means that students at the University generally have more time to engage in meaningful educational activities than students at other institutions across the nation. Overall, the NSSE results indicate that the University’s students are essentially the same as students throughout the nation. This is especially true for seniors. Student Satisfaction Survey As part of the University’s commitment to enhancing student performance, a student satisfaction survey was given electronically to the student body in spring 2007 [Exhibit 52]. The purpose of the survey was to elicit opinions from students regarding their experiences at the University. Survey questions were posed in four different areas: Orientation, Advisement and Registration; Faculty and Instruction; Academic and Student Support Services; and Overall College Experience. The survey responses were converted to a five point Likert scale of 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied. The average total responses for virtually all questions were above 3.0. For most questions, the freshmen were often the most satisfied group while the seniors often were the least satisfied. The highest and lowest average response scores recorded were: Lowest scores

• Getting the courses I need in the appropriate sequence (3.1) • The scheduling of courses with appropriate frequency (3.2) • The availability of online courses at Bloomsburg University (2.8) • Signage in parking lots (2.7)

46

Highest scores • The overall academic experience at Bloomsburg University (3.8) • Major preparation for future employment (3.8) • Development of my critical thinking skills (3.8) • Development of my communication skills (3.8) • The number and range of majors offered (3.9) • The quality of instruction I have received from faculty (3.8) • Clubs and organizations (3.8) • The Library’s collection and services (3.9) • Opportunities to participate in intramural sport programs (3.8)

All of the remaining responses fell in a range between 3.3 and 3.7. In response to the survey results, all academic programs are now provided with the resources they need to better meet course demands. The University has also created a task force specifically charged with facilitating the creation of new online courses. The survey will be repeated in the future on a biennial basis. Accredited Programs Many academic programs at the University are currently accredited with various national/ international accreditation bodies. Most of the accrediting bodies require demonstration of assessment of student learning as part of the accreditation process. Programs who have achieved accredited status often serve as campus leaders in developing new assessment techniques. They also serve as models for other programs wishing to enhance their assessment practices. Several of the faculty who served on the Middle States Self-Study Assessment and Evaluation Task Force came from departments with accredited programs. They were chosen because they had the most extensive background in outcomes assessment. Many of them had attended conferences and seminars on outcomes assessment as part of their department’s accreditation activities. This gave them insight into how to conduct effective outcomes assessment. The list on the following page identifies the University’s accredited programs, types of degrees conferred, and the accrediting bodies.

47

Accredited Programs - October 31, 2008

Accredited Program Degree(s) Accrediting Body Accounting BSBA Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business Audiology and Speech Language Pathology

MS/AuD Council on Academic Accreditation in American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Council for Exceptional Children, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education

Business Education BSEd/MEd National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, Pennsylvania Department of Education

Business Information Systems BSBA Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business Chemistry BA/BS American Chemical Society Computer and Information Science BS Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business Computer Science – Mathematics BS Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology Curriculum and Instruction MEd National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education,

Pennsylvania Department of Education Early Childhood BSEd/MEd National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education,

Pennsylvania Department of Education Education of the Deaf/Hard of Hearing MS Council on the Education of the Deaf,

Pennsylvania Department of Education Electronics Engineering Technology BS Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology Elementary Education BSEd/MEd National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education,

Pennsylvania Department of Education Exercise Science BS/MS American Society of Exercise Physiologists,

Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs

Finance BSBA Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business Health Physics BS Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology Management BSBA Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business Marketing BSBA Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business Masters of Business Administration MBA Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business Music BA National Association of Schools of Music Nursing BSN/MSN Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education,

Pennsylvania State Board of Nursing Reading MEd Pennsylvania Department of Education Secondary Education BSEd National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education,

Pennsylvania Department of Education Social Work BSW Council on Social Work Education Special Education BSEd/MS National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education

- BSEd only, Pennsylvania Department of Education Theatre Arts BA National Association of Schools of Theatre

Assessment of Student Learning Each academic department was asked to self-report on the student assessment activities engaged in since 1999. In addition, individual department strategic plans for the past several years were reviewed to verify that there were planned assessment activities occurring. College of Business All of the departments within the College of Business are accredited by at least one national/international accrediting body that requires documented student outcomes assessment.

48

The various departments have implemented many program changes based on the results of their outcomes assessment activities. Some of the most noteworthy changes that have occurred since 1999 include:

• Accounting internship exit interviews indicated that additional computer skills would have been beneficial. In response to that finding, the Accounting Department added a required Accounting Information System course for all accounting majors.

• Accounting alumni surveys indicated that the graduates wished that they had been exposed to an electronic bookkeeping system. The Accounting Department has incorporated an electronic bookkeeping practice set into the Intermediate I accounting class.

• A need for individuals trained in Fraud Examination was identified through interviews with employers. The Accounting Department has developed and implemented a Concentration in Fraud Examination.

• Alumni surveys indicated that the Business Education and Business Information Systems Department’s graduates needed additional coursework in several areas. The Introduction to Business Information Systems, Networking, Systems Security, Project Management, and Cases in Business Information Systems courses have been added to the department’s curriculum.

• Writing rubrics imbedded in the business core course, Managerial Accounting, indicated that business majors lacked the requisite business writing skills. The College of Business responded by creating a new business core course, Business Communications.

• Surveys of current students and alumni indicated that a need for individuals trained in Human Resource Management existed. Therefore, a Concentration in Human Resource Management has been created by the Management Department.

The following table identifies the various types of assessment activities conducted by the departments within the College of Business between 1999 and 2008.

College of Business – Assessment Activities Direct Methods Indirect Methods Department

Embedded Course Assessments

Portfolio or Performance Assessments Testing

Capstone Projects

Surveys and Interviews

Tracking pre-graduation student data

Tracking post-graduation student data

Accounting 1 1 1 1 1 Business Education / Business Information Systems 1 1 1

1 Computer Information Systems 1 1

1 1 1 Finance and Legal Studies 1 1

Management 1 1 1 1 Marketing 1 1 Total Measures in Place 6 1 5 1 3 3 3

49

In 1990, the College of Business also began administering the Educational Testing Services Major Fields Test in Business to their graduating seniors. The first several sets of results indicated that student performance in the economics portion of the test was consistently below the level that the college considered acceptable. Approximately six years ago the College approached the Economics Department about the test results and worked with their faculty to identify additional topics that needed to be covered in the basic macro and micro economics courses. Once the course content was revised, scores on the economics portion of the test rose to acceptable levels. College of Liberal Arts Because the College of Liberal Arts is multidisciplinary in nature, learning assessments conducted within the college have led to a broad range of corrective actions. Some examples of these actions include:

• Student and alumni surveys revealed that Theatre Arts students need more specialized courses taught by individuals with current work experience in professional theatre. The Theatre Arts Department has responded to the survey results by regularly offering select courses that are taught by individuals with current work experience.

• Through senior exit interviews, the Political Science Department identified a need for a discipline-specific writing course and a need for a capstone course. The department has subsequently implemented a Research and Writing course and is developing a capstone course for their majors.

• The History Department has instituted a program of interviews and surveys at various stages in their majors’ academic experience in order to identify ways to enhance their students’ learning experiences.

• The Art and Art History Department has been using surveys and course-embedded measures as a means for identifying ways for students to develop a deeper appreciation of art. The department has been adjusting course content and presentation accordingly.

• Through portfolio assessment, the English Department determined that, for English majors, writing assignments other than conventional literature essays were weaker than expected. Consequently, the English Department expanded its variety of upper division writing courses.

• Although exit interviews determined that graduating English majors were pleased with their program of study, alumni surveys revealed that alums had concerns about the career advice they had received from their advisors. The English Department has responded by instituting a fall advising workshop for all new English faculty. Many of the department’s experienced faculty members also participate in the workshop.

• As part of their Research and Writing Course, the Anthropology Department has been assessing their majors’ writing skills. Their assessment has verified that the students writing skills are satisfactory.

• Exit surveys of Anthropology graduates confirm that they are engaged in learning experiences outside of the required course content. Graduates reported that they attended off-campus lectures and did independent reading of the discipline’s research literature.

• Through student assessment auditions, the Music Department determined that its non-piano music majors did not meet the department’s minimum standards for piano

50

proficiency. In response, the department has established an entrance examination to assess each student’s piano skill level and to assign each student to the appropriate course of piano study.

The following table identifies the types of assessment activities conducted by departments within the College of Liberal Arts between 1999 and 2008.

College of Liberal Arts – Assessment Activities Direct Methods Indirect Methods Department

Embedded Course Assessments

Portfolio or Performance Assessments Testing

Capstone Projects

Surveys and Interviews

Tracking pre-graduation student data

Tracking post-graduation student data

Anthropology 1 1 1 1 Art and Art History 1 1 1 Communications and Theatre Arts

1

Economics English 1 1 Exercise Science and Athletics

History 1 1 1 1 Mass Communications

Music 1 1 Philosophy 1 Political Science 1 Psychology Sociology, Social Work and Criminal Justice 1 1

1 Total Measures 6 3 0 2 5 1 4

College of Professional Studies All of the departments within the College of Professional Studies are accredited by at least one national/international accrediting body that requires documented student outcomes assessment. Some examples of these assessment activities include:

• Depending upon their career interests, students graduating from the Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology must pass the National Certification Tests in ‘Speech Pathology, pass the PRAXIS examinations, meet the requirements for the Council on Academic Accreditation and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Certification, and qualify for state licensure. The department monitors student performance of these examinations and adjusts course content to ensure that the students are prepared to successfully complete the exams.

• The Nursing Department employs embedded assessment measures to demonstrate to the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education that their students are obtaining the required knowledge base. Based upon their assessment results, the department routinely makes corrections to their course content.

• The various education departments use the PRAXIS examinations as their primary assessment tool. All education majors must successfully complete the series of PRAXIS

51

examinations in order to receive their initial teaching certification. The departments monitor student performance on the PRAXIS examinations and use the results to identify and correct any deficiencies in course content.

• Students in the Department of Education Studies and Secondary Education must complete the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s 430 form to gain certification to student teach. Through analysis of the 430 forms the department determined that students were not receiving sufficient diverse off-site classroom observations prior to student teaching. The department developed a checklist to ensure that all students made several off-site classroom visits to school districts such as Philadelphia and Hazelton which have diverse student populations.

The following table identifies the various types of assessment activities conducted by the departments within the College of Professional Studies between 1999 and 2008.

College of Professional Studies – Assessment Activities Direct Methods Indirect Methods Department

Embedded Course Assessments

Portfolio or Performance Assessments Testing

Capstone Projects

Surveys and Interviews

Tracking pre-graduation student data

Tracking post-graduation student data

Audiology and Speech Pathology 1 1 1

1 1

Early Childhood and Elementary Education 1 1

1

Educational Studies and Secondary Education 1 1

1 Exceptionality Programs 1 1 1 1

1 1

Nursing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total Measures in Place 3 3 5 4 3 1 5

College of Science and Technology All of the programs in the College of Science and Technology that are eligible for professional accreditation or certification have attained accredited or certified status as of fall 2008. All of the relevant accrediting/certifying bodies require ongoing student outcomes assessment. These assessment activities have led to several individual program improvements including:

• Since 2003, the Chemistry Department has conducted course-embedded, subject-specific examinations at the beginning and end of the Introduction to Chemistry, Chemistry for the Sciences, Fundamentals of Organic Chemistry, and Biochemistry 1 courses. Lecture and laboratory topics in these courses are often modified to reflect student strengths and weaknesses identified by the beginning of course examination.

• In response to feedback obtained from alumni, the Chemistry Department updated course content to include more public speaking and writing assignments.

• Analysis of the chemistry majors’ performance in their first chemistry course indicated that many were not adequately prepared for the assigned coursework. Thus, since 2005,

52

the Chemistry Department has used the Chemistry Placement Examination to place incoming majors in the correct initial chemistry courses. The department has also begun using the Global Assessment of Logical Thinking (GALT) examination to identify incoming majors who have difficulties with scientific reasoning.

• The Chemistry Department uses questions furnished by the American Chemical Society to assess students’ progress and command of chemistry fundamentals.

• Based on observations of retention data provided by the Office of Institution Research, the Physics and Engineering Technology Department determined that their majors were not fully prepared for their initial calculus and physics courses. As a result, in fall 2006, the department added the introductory course Contemporary Physics to the beginning of their curriculum.

• In response to concerns about student scores on the math portion of the PRAXIS examination, the Mathematics Department has implemented structured review sessions for students preparing to take the exam.

• To ensure that students master the key principles in their introductory courses, the Geography and Geosciences Department has initiated “test blueprinting”. Responses to several test-imbedded key concept questions are routinely analyzed and course presentations modified when necessary.

• The Department of Instructional Technology has developed highly articulated learning outcomes and assessment measures. Throughout their coursework, majors are informed of outcomes they are expected to achieve and how they will be evaluated (e.g. rubrics, client evaluations, etc.).

The following table identifies the various types of assessment activities conducted by departments within the College of Science and Technology between 1999 and 2008.

College of Science and Technology - Assessment Activities Direct Methods Indirect Methods Department

Embedded Course Assessments

Portfolio or Performance Assessments Testing

Capstone Projects

Surveys and Interviews

Tracking pre-graduation student data

Tracking post-graduation student data

Biology and Allied Health Sciences 1 1

1 1 1 Chemistry 1 1 1 1 Geography and Geosciences 1 1

Instructional Technology 1 1

Mathematics, Computer Science, and Statistics 1 1 1

1 1 1 Physics and Engineering Technology 1 1

Total Measures in Place 6 1 3 3 2 3 3

53

Library As a department that is not aligned to any college or program, the Library is responsible for its own student assessment activities. The Library Outcomes Assessment and Information Literacy Committee (LOAILC) offers an online interactive tutorial on general library research. Through this tutorial the Library has discovered general areas of weakness in students’ library research skills and has revised its course-related library instruction accordingly. As an example, the committee discovered that students scored poorly on tutorial questions pertaining to using print indexes, and finding books using the Library of Congress Classification System call numbers. Librarians now emphasize these points in their library instruction sessions and their interactions with students at the Reference Desk. The librarians also identified trends in students’ information literacy needs in the online course, Introduction to Library Research. This has led to incorporation of different assignments and learning tools into the course such as the use of blogs, self-assessments, and online “flash cards.” In 2005, the LOAILC began giving the King’s College Information Literacy Assessment to a small sample of the graduating seniors to assess their information literacy based on standards developed by the Association of College and Research Libraries. The seniors scored highest on Standard 1 (“determine the extent of information needed”) and Standard 2 (“access the needed information effectively and efficiently”). They scored lowest on Standard 3 (“evaluate information and its sources critically and incorporate selected information into one’s knowledge base”) and Standard 4 (“use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose”). The ultimate goal of the LOAILC is to administer the King’s College assessment instrument each year to incoming freshmen and graduating seniors in order to obtain better data on the development of the students’ information literacy skills while at the University. In the fall 2008 semester, the Committee began implementing the process by administering the King’s College assessment instrument to a large sample of the incoming freshman class. A report on the results of that assessment was not available at the time this document was written. A complete report of the Library’s outcomes assessment activities is available in Exhibit 53. Awareness of Assessment Activities Members of the campus community normally become aware of institutional assessment activities during preparation of their department’s strategic plan and through the 5-year review process. The results of University-wide assessment activities are also routinely presented at campus assemblages such as the Planning and Budget Committee, University Forum, and Bloomsburg University Curriculum Committee meetings. After public presentation and discussion, many of the assessment results are placed on a shared network drive that can be accessed by the entire campus community. As part of the development of the University’s self-study, a questionnaire was prepared and distributed to the campus community (originally discussed in Chapter Two) [Exhibit 3]. Several

54

questions addressed aspects of institutional assessment and assessment of student learning at the University. The results were mixed. On the positive side:

• 60% participated in their department’s outcomes assessment plan (Question 19). • 56% participated in their department’s action plan (Question 19). • 54% participated in their department’s outcomes assessment data collection (Question

19). • 48% believe that outcomes assessment has been beneficial in developing departmental

strategic plans (Question 20). On the negative side:

• 66% did not know if the results of outcomes assessment were used to develop strategic plans (Question 18).

• 71% did not know if the results of outcomes assessment were used to determine how resources are allocated (Question 15).

When the responses were broken down between faculty, staff and administrators, it became apparent that each group had more specific knowledge of the types of planning and assessment activities that were occurring at their level than elsewhere across campus. For instance, faculty reported knowing more about planning and assessment at the department level and less about university-wide strategic planning. “I do not know” was a common response chosen for many of the planning and assessment questions. Encouragement of Assessment Efforts Several key academic administrators (Provost, Deans, and the Assistant Dean of the College of Liberal Arts) were asked to comment on how they encourage, recognize, and value faculty assessment of student learning. Most of the administrators reported that they provided some form of funding to support assessment efforts. The funding varied from supporting assessment training and purchase of external evaluation instruments to providing departments with additional discretionary funding to reward their efforts. Questions 43 and 44 of the self-study survey of faculty, staff, and administrators [Exhibit 3] indicate that most of the faculty felt that their primary source of recognition and support for their student assessment activities came from within their own department. This is understandable given that many faculty assessment activities are centered at the departmental level. Deficient Assessment Activity The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) announced on November 12, 2008 that 22 initial teacher certification programs currently available at the University have successfully completed the reaccreditation process and have received reaccreditation through 2011. However, NCATE also notified the institution that the advanced teacher certification programs (programs leading to master’s degrees and advanced certificates

55

for individuals who already have their first license to teach) do not meet the requirements of NCATE Standard 4 (Diversity) [Exhibit 55]. The specific deficiencies noted by NCATE under Standard 4 are:

• The unit does not systematically use disaggregated data on candidates’ abilities to address the needs of learners from diverse populations for program evaluation and improvement.

• The unit’s collection of assessment data on candidates’ abilities to address the needs of learners from diverse populations is limited and varies across programs.

• The unit does not ensure that all candidates interact with peers from diverse ethnic and racial groups.

• The unit does not ensure that all candidates interact with P-12 students from diverse ethnic and racial groups.

• The unit does not ensure that all candidates interact with faculty from diverse ethnic and racial groups.

As a result of these deficiencies, the NCATE accreditation for advanced teacher certification programs at the University will be terminated at the conclusion of the spring 2009 semester. Assessment tools are currently being developed to address the deficiencies cited by NCATE. The assessment activities are being led by the Associate Dean of the College of Liberal Arts, who has been named the Unit Head for all teacher education programs. Although the University is not required to apply for reaccreditation until the year 2011, University officials plan to request an earlier accreditation visit from NCATE. Review and Recommendations Just as the University is driven by the overall strategic plan, each administrative and academic unit is driven by a specific departmental strategic plan. Each of these strategic plans identifies the goals to be achieved, the methods to be employed, the anticipated outcomes, and how the results will be assessed. Accreditation of individual undergraduate and graduate programs is one example of how strategic planning and assessment combine to demonstrate that the University is fulfilling its educational mission. At the college and department levels, strategic planning and assessment of program results are used to enable the unit to acquire or maintain accreditation; at the individual department and course level, assessment is employed to demonstrate to the accrediting body that the students are acquiring the level of knowledge necessary to succeed in their chosen field. Individuals at the University are made aware of assessment activities through their departmental strategic planning process and 5-year reviews. University-wide assessment information is presented at many different meetings across campus and is made available electronically on a shared network drive. Unfortunately, even with all the avenues available, many members of the campus community reported that they are unaware of the various planning and assessment activities being conducted at the University.

56

Recommendation 4: Bloomsburg University should create an Office of Outcomes Assessment

Justification

• As initially recommended by the Assessment and Evaluation Task Force, there needs to be a recognized entity responsible for coordinating outcomes assessment activities at the University.

• There needs to be one entity that is readily accessible and able to provide education, guidance and support to individuals and groups wishing to conduct outcomes assessment activities.

• There needs to be one entity that will review, compile, disseminate, and serve as a repository for the results of assessment activities on campus.

• There needs to be a highly visible champion of outcomes assessment on campus. Process The University needs to dedicate the resources necessary to create an Office of Outcomes Assessment. The office needs to be adequately staffed with a director and additional staff members trained in conducting outcomes assessment. Those individuals need to have the resources necessary to conduct regular outcomes assessment training for the faculty and staff. The office should also work with the faculty to plan and conduct assessment activities at the department and course level.

Recommendation 5: Bloomsburg University should create an elected Outcomes Assessment Committee.

Justification

• The committee would provide a link between the Office of Outcomes Assessment and the faculty, staff and administrators to ensure that their concerns are voiced.

• The committee would provide a gauge of acceptance of proposed assessment activities and help champion the assessment process across campus.

Process The proposed Outcomes Assessment Committee would be a standing committee that would consist of representatives from the faculty, staff, and administrators who would be elected to the committee in accordance with the various collective bargaining agreements in force at the time of the first election. It would serve as an advisory committee to the proposed Office of Outcomes Assessment and would be an independent advocate and reviewer of assessment activities within the University.

57

CHAPTER SIX

STUDENT ADMISSIONS AND RETENTION, STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES, AND RELATED EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES

Standards 8, 9, & 13

The Middle States Commission on Higher Education statements regarding the standards discussed in this chapter are:

Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention

The institution seeks to admit students whose interests, goals, and abilities are congruent with its mission and seeks to retain them through the pursuit of the students’ educational goals.

Standard 9: Student Support Services

The institution provides student support services reasonably necessary to enable each student to achieve the institution’s goals for students.

Standard 13: Related Educational Activities

The institution’s programs or activities that are characterized by particular content, focus, location, mode of delivery, or sponsorship meet appropriate standards.

Methodology An eighteen-member working group was assigned to review student admissions, retention, support services, and related educational activities. The review included examination of the University’s admission statistics and practices, retention policies, graduation rates, current student support services, and a variety of related services available to students. The review also examined various special programs designed to recruit, retain and ensure graduation of a variety of student populations traditionally considered at risk or disadvantaged. Analysis As a member of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE), Bloomsburg University is expected to provide access to affordable education to a broad cross section of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Although the University has several programs in place to attract and retain disadvantaged and/or historically underrepresented students, as well as students from foreign countries, the vast majority of the student body can be classified as a traditional population of white 18-21 year olds who are first or second generation college students.

58

The following enrollment statistics clearly demonstrate that the University has been working diligently to increase the ethnic diversity of its student body. The percentage of historically underrepresented students in the undergraduate student body has almost doubled since 2000 and enhancing minority enrollment continues to be a priority for the University.

Total Undergraduate Enrollment By Race – Fall Semester Students 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Minority 5.45% 5.37% 6.10% 6.50% 7.52% 8.75% 9.39% 10.23% 10.65% International .67% .65% .52% .92% .57% .75% .63% .72% .67% Caucasian 93.88% 93.98% 91.61% 90.81% 88.61% 86.28% 83.78% 80.89% 79.40% Non reporting 0% 0% 1.77% 1.77% 3.30% 4.22% 6.20% 8.16% 9.28% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: Exhibit 56 - Bloomsburg University, Total Undergraduate Enrollment By Race. General enrollment goals, which call for sustained enrollment growth of between .5 and 1 percent annually, are detailed in the University Strategic Plan [Exhibit 5]. More precise enrollment targets are contained in the University Enrollment Management Plan [Exhibit 44]. This plan is continually reviewed throughout the year by the Enrollment Management Committee which is composed of faculty, staff, administrators, and students from across the campus. The committee meets regularly to examine enrollment trends, retention rates, and other enrollment concerns. They report their findings and recommendations to the Planning and Budget Committee as well as to the University’s senior administration. The following enrollment statistics provide an overview of fall semester Full Time Equivalent (F.T.E.) enrollment and headcount enrollment since 2000. The number of undergraduate degrees granted during the academic year is also provided for comparative purposes.

Undergraduate Fall Enrollment Statistics Undergraduate 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Fall F.T.E. 6,508 6,933 7,004 7,125 7,154 7,357 7,488 7,528 7,648 Fall Headcount Male 2,636 2,827 2,885 2,941 2,982 3,078 3,165 3,280 3,369 Female 4,208 4,396 4,413 4,580 4,542 4,705 4,712 4,658 4,712 Total Headcount 6,844 7,223 7,298 7,521 7,524 7,783 7,877 7,938 8,081 Degrees Granted 1,296 1,245 1,386 1,539 1,403 1,491 1,516 1,545 n/a Degrees/Headcount 18.9% 17.2% 19.0% 20.5% 18.6% 19.2% 19.2% 19.5% n/a

Sources: Exhibit 57 - Bloomsburg University, Official Enrollment Data, Fall Semesters 1999

through 2008. Exhibit 58 - Bloomsburg University, Degrees Granted 2001-2008. As the undergraduate enrollment numbers indicate, the University has been able to achieve its enrollment goal of gradual sustained growth. At the same time, the number of students graduating each year has remained fairly stable at approximately nineteen percent of total enrollment. This stability in the growth of the student body has a profound positive impact upon the University’s ability to be proactive in its strategic planning and operational decision making.

59

The University has also been able to attract a large applicant pool each year. These high application rates enable the University to be selective in the admission of its traditional student base. This is accomplished through review of the traditional admissions indicators: high school grades, class rank, and SAT/ACT scores, as well as through the use of a Predictive GPA (PGPA) which is computed for each applicant. The admissions office enters each applicant’s high school GPA, class rank, and standardized test scores into a data base that contains both this information and the first year university GPA for a large cross section of Bloomsburg University students. An algorithm, which also considers the applicant’s intended major, is used to determine a predicted GPA (PGPA) for each potential student’s freshman year. For most majors, the minimum PGPA considered for admission is 2.30. The University recognizes that there are extenuating factors that can influence the ability of a student to succeed in college. Accordingly, applicants who may not meet the PGPA criteria often have their applications individually reviewed for the presence of alternative positive indicators such as extra-curricular activities, recommendations, essays or other supporting documents. A portion of the applicants who do not meet the minimum PGPA requirement, or who have an identified Math or English deficiency, are invited to participate in a special Summer Freshman program. Students who successfully complete the program, depending upon enrollment and student housing demand, are offered the opportunity to begin regular classes in either the subsequent fall or spring semester. The following table provides an overview of the admissions statistics, including the average SAT scores, of the fall semester freshman class.

Fall Freshman Admissions Statistics (Including Summer Freshmen and Act101/EOP Students) Undergraduate 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Fall Freshmen Applied 6,281 6,413 6,888 7,274 7,820 8,237 8,943 9,868 10,840 Accepted 3,813 5,083 4,722 5,123 4,961 5,570 5,386 6,009 6,356 Enrolled 1,426 1,692 1,487 1,671 1,542 1,697 1,644 1,685 1,811 Enrolled/Accepts 37.4% 33.3% 31.5% 32.6% 31.1% 30.5% 30.5% 28.0% 28.5% Avg. Total SAT Score Total Enrolled-Note 1 1020 1016 1014 1017 1013 1013 1007 1015 1021 Regular Enrolled 1045 1040 1042 1044 1046 1042 1044 1049 1057

Sources: Exhibit 59 - Bloomsburg University, Admissions Statistics By Admissions Category,

Fall Semesters 2000 through 2008. Exhibit 60 - Bloomsburg University, SAT Average Scores, First-Time Entering

Freshmen by Cohort.

Note 1: The total enrolled SAT scores include the scores of all freshmen admitted in the fall. The regular enrolled SAT scores excludes students admitted through special needs

and developmental programs. The data shows that the number of individuals applying for admission to the University since 2000 has increased by 73 percent. However, because the University has made a concerted effort

60

to limit enrollment growth to about 1% per year, the number of students actually matriculating at the University has increased by only 27 percent since 2000. It is noteworthy that the yield rate (Enrolled/Accepted) has shown a steady decline from 37.4 percent to 28.5 percent during that same period. One of the key reasons for the decline in the University’s yield rate is that competing institutions are offering major scholarships. For this reason, the University has increased its current scholarship fundraising efforts. In order to remain competitive, the University has invested heavily in its physical plant over the last ten years. The current Facilities Master Plan [Exhibit 16] calls for the renovation of all existing student housing and related facilities, as well as construction of several additional contemporary housing units. The physical plant is discussed in greater detail in Chapter Three. Enrollment Management Plan PASSHE has projected that the number of Pennsylvania high school graduates will peak in 2009 and then gradually decline for the foreseeable future [Exhibit 61]. In response to this projection, the University has developed a number of initiatives to increase enrollment of non-traditional, historically underrepresented, transfer, and graduate students. These efforts are clearly articulated in the University’s Strategic Enrollment Management Plan [Exhibit 44]. Transfer Students The following statistics provide an overview of the number of transfer students enrolling at the University each year. It is clear from the table that the initiative to attract additional transfer students has met with only limited success to date. However, the numbers are growing and the project remains a priority for both PASSHE and the University.

Enrollment Numbers – Undergraduate Transfer Students 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Transfer Students 468 519 474 504 478 587 554 566

Source: Exhibit 62 – Bloomsburg University, Office of Institutional Research, Enrollment

Management Benchmark Recruitment Data, Benchmark 6. Enrollment Management Steering Committee In an effort to formalize enrollment planning the University created the Enrollment Management Task Force, which was subsequently restructured and renamed the Enrollment Management Steering Committee in 2006. The committee is composed of representatives from the Office of Admissions, Residence Life, Financial Aid, Advisement, Office of Institutional Research, the Registrar’s Office, Alumni Affairs, and faculty from all four colleges. The current enrollment plan covers 2006-2011.

61

The plan is formulated around three guiding principles:

1. Given the projected decline in the number of students graduating from high school from 2009-2014, the plan includes preemptive actions to maintain or slightly increase the university’s current level of enrollment and strategies to retain a higher percentage of students admitted to the university

2. The plan is data driven. It uses historical data compiled by the Office of Institutional Research on the recruitment and retention of various groups of students to develop strategies that will enable the university to achieve specific goals, objectives and benchmarks by 2011.

3. The plan is reviewed and updated on a regular basis. Enrollment Goals The University Enrollment Management Plan, updated November 30, 2007 [Exhibit 44], established several recruitment and retention goals and benchmarks. They are: Recruitment Goal 1: To maintain enrollment at levels consistent with resource requirements and constraints.

• Benchmark 1: The FTE enrollment of undergraduate students at the university will grow to 7,500 by fall 2011. (Fall 2008 FTE was 7648.)

• Benchmark 2: The FTE enrollment of graduate students at the university will grow to 700 by fall 2011. (Fall 2008 FTE was 456.)

• Benchmark 3: The out-of-state enrollment will grow to 15% of total enrollment by fall 2009. (Fall 2008 total out-of-state enrollment was 12.9%.)

• Benchmark 4: The non-traditional, undergraduate, degree student population of the university will grow to 650 by fall 2011. (Fall 2008 non-traditional enrollment was 424.)

• Benchmark 5: The undergraduate non-degree enrollment will grow to 265 by fall 2011. (Fall 2008 non-degree enrollment was 241.)

• Benchmark 6: The enrollment of new transfer students will grow to 700 (fall plus spring admits) by the 2011-2012 academic year. (2007-2008 transfer students were 539.)

Recruitment Goal 2: To increase the diversity of students enrolled at the university.

• Benchmark 1: The total FTE enrollment of underrepresented students at the university will grow to 1000 by fall 2011. (Fall 2008 total underrepresented student enrollment was 851.)

• Benchmark 2: The total FTE international students enrolled at the university will grow to 150 by fall 2011. (Fall 2008 FTE international student enrollment was 68.)

Recruitment Goal 3: To increase the number of high achieving students enrolled at the university.

• Benchmark 1: The average total SAT score of regular-admit students will increase to 1050 by fall 2011. (Fall 2008 regular admit freshman average SAT score was 1057.)

62

Retention Goal 1: To retain a larger percentage of first-time, full-time freshmen to graduation. • Benchmark 1: Retention of first-time, full-time freshmen to the sophomore year will

reach 85% by fall 2010. (Fall 2007 freshman retention was 80.0%.) • Benchmark 2: Graduation rates for first-time, full-time freshmen will increase to 65% by

fall 2011. (Fall 2002 freshmen six-year graduation rate was 65.3%.) Retention Goal 2: To retain a larger percentage of populations that are vulnerable to attrition.

• Benchmark 1: One-year retention of traditionally vulnerable students will increase to 80% by fall 2010. (Fall 2006 freshmen simple average retention was 78.6%.)

• Benchmark 2: The graduation rate of traditionally vulnerable students will increase to 50% by spring 2012. (Fall 2001 freshmen simple average six-year graduation rate was 48.8%.)

As can be seen above, some of the recruiting benchmarks have already been exceeded and others are nearing attainment. However, some of the other benchmarks are proving to be more difficult to meet. Marketing Marketing of the University to prospective students and their families has become a key component of the school’s enrollment strategy. For example, the University was one of the first schools in the state to launch a web site that enabled prospective students to research the school on line and apply for admissions electronically. The University Communications Department has had the size of its budget expanded to enhance advertising in media such as billboards, radio, television, and print. Most of the advertising materials are developed internally by the University’s own graphic designers and writers. This has enabled the University to present a focused message that accurately reflects the University’s mission and goals. The University is also working with the Bloomsburg University Alumni Association to engage alumni in informally marketing activities in their home towns. This is a marketing tool that had been underutilized in the past. Student Retention Another major component of the strategic enrollment management plan focuses on student retention. For the last decade the freshman to sophomore retention rate has remained quite stable at approximately 80 percent. This is significantly lower than the desired benchmark rate of 85 percent. However, the one-year retention rates for several of the freshmen groups identified as vulnerable to attrition already approach or exceed their targeted levels. The groups showing the least progress are Latinos, Act 101/EOP, and Undeclared Freshmen [Exhibit 63]. Six-year graduation rates have hovered about 3 percent below the enrollment management plan’s benchmark for several years. Fortunately, many of the populations identified as vulnerable to attrition have already exceeded their benchmark graduation rates. However, graduation rates for

63

Latinos and Act101/EOP students continue to lag well behind their benchmarks. This is due, at least in part, to the fact that these student populations continue to have low first year retention rates. The following statistics provide an overview of the one-year retention and six-year graduation rates for first-time, full-time freshmen.

First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen One-Year Retention and Six-Year Graduation Rates One-Year Retention 1999 to

2000 2000 to

2001 2001 to

2002 2002 to

2003 2003 to

2004 2004 to

2005 2005 to

2006 2006 to

2007 2007 to

2008 Bloomsburg 82.1% 80.1% 79.2% 80.8% 81.9% 82.2% 79.1% 80.8% 80.0% PASSHE Averages 74.5% 75.6% 76.1% 76.2% 76.6% 76.4% 76.6% 76.4% n/a CSRDE Peers 72.8% 73.6% 73.6% 74.2% 74.6% 74.3% 73.5% 73.6% n/a Six-Year Graduation 1994 to

2000 1995 to

2001 1996 to

2002 1997 to

2003 1998 to

2004 1999 to

2005 2000 to

2006 2001 to

2007 2002 to

2008 Bloomsburg 62.0% 61.2% 61.2% 58.7% 62.0% 62.9% 63.5% 61.5% 65.3% PASSHE Averages 51.3% 52.4% 52.1% 53.4% 52.7% 53.4% 54.2% 54.9% n/a CSRDE Peers 42.5% 43.1% 43.8% 45.7% 46.6% 46.2% 47.0% 46.8% n/a

Source: Exhibit 64 - Bloomsburg University, Second-Year Persistence Rates and Six-Year

Graduation Rates. Note: CSRDE Peers – Moderately Selective Institutions from the Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange (SAT Composite Scores from 990-1044) Developmental Programs The University has been very proactive in its efforts to ensure that students who are admitted have the best chance possible to graduate. Retention efforts begin during the admissions process when all incoming freshmen are prescreened by the Admissions Office for placement in developmental programs as outlined in the University policy, PRP 3360, Placement Testing for Developmental Courses [Exhibit 65]. All admitted students whose SAT verbal and/or math score(s) fall below a designated cut-off (480 verbal, 450 math) or whose predicted GPA (PGPA) is below 2.3 are required to take a writing and/or math placement test(s). The writing test consists of the Nelson Denny Reading and Vocabulary Test, as well as a separate writing sample. The math test consists of two sections: elementary algebra skills, and intermediate algebra skills. The test scores are reported to the Department of Developmental Instruction (DDI) and the Assistant Vice President of Academic Affairs/Dean of Undergraduate Education. Students identified as being in need of remedial assistance are placed in the appropriate developmental course(s) by DDI during their first year of coursework at the University. Developmental Instruction staff also place holds on the students’ records to prevent them from scheduling regular courses in disciplines related to their developmental deficiencies. The holds are not removed until the students have successfully completed the assigned developmental course(s).

64

Students are notified shortly after they complete the placement tests if they have to complete any developmental coursework. However, neither the students nor their academic advisors receive their placement test scores. This is one of the problems that the University hopes to remedy when a new and more efficient screening system, Accuplacer, becomes operational during the 2008-09 academic year. Academic Advisement In accordance with the collective bargaining agreement between the Association of State College and University Faculties (APSCUF) and PASSHE, student advisement is the responsibility the University’s faculty. Thus, with the exception of incoming freshmen who have not declared a major, each incoming student is assigned a faculty advisor from the department in which he/she has chosen to major. The undeclared freshmen are assigned advisors from the Academic Advisement Center. Members of the Advisement Center staff then work with the undeclared students to help them select appropriate majors by the time they have complete 45 credits of coursework. New faculty receive advisement training as part of their faculty orientation and through peer mentoring within their academic departments. All faculty normally receive training and updates on curricular changes either through programs sponsored by the Teaching and Learning Center (TALE) or the Registrar’s Office. The individual colleges also have their own procedures for updating their faculty on curricular and other matters affecting advising. Each academic department has a particular method for advising students. In some departments, the chairperson conducts group advisement sessions; in other departments, advisees are assigned to individual faculty members and one-on-one advising occurs. Most students also receive group advisement during their first semester on campus as part of their University Seminar course. In addition, students who participate in Living Learning Communities, or one of the other special support programs, receive additional advisement through those programs. Each academic department has its own rules concerning how often students must see their advisors. Some departments place a hold on their majors’ records each semester. This prevents the students from registering for next semester’s classes until they confer with their advisor and the advisor removes the hold. Other departments simply recommend that students visit their advisor each semester prior to registering for classes. Regardless of the advisement requirements imposed, each department has a printed Graduation Requirements Sheet that allows both the student and advisor to accurately track the student’s progress towards graduation [Exhibit 66]. This worksheet, which was a recommendation that came out of the last Middle States Self-Study, has taken much of the ambiguity out of the advisement process for both the students and their advisors.

65

Graduate Programs The University’s enrollment management plan [Exhibit 44] has identified increased graduate enrollment levels as one means of countering the anticipated decline in the pool of high school graduates after 2009. The following graduate program statistics provide an overview of annual fall semester graduate student enrollment and annual graduation numbers for the University.

Selected Graduate Program Statistics 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Fall F.T.E. 346 332 386 438 467 461 500 483 456 Fall Headcount Male 191 195 226 221 214 249 257 241 242 Female 513 498 515 542 567 538 589 566 532 Total Headcount 704 693 741 763 781 787 846 807 774 Degrees Granted Masters Degrees 228 239 275 308 337 325 316 335 n/a Audiology (Au.D.) 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 10 n/a Total Graduate Degrees Granted

228

239

275

308

337

332

322

345

n/a

Fall Graduate Student Enrollment By Race

Minority 3.83% 2.75% 3.92% 3.15% 2.69% 2.92% 2.72% 3.59% 3.88% International 4.96% 4.62% 4.18% 3.28% 3.59% 4.45% 4.49% 3.97% 2.84% Caucasian 91.21% 92.63% 88.53% 89.90% 90.90% 90.47% 89.24% 89.71% 90.83% Non Reporting 0% 0% 3.37% 3.67% 2.82% 2.16% 3.55% 2.73% 2.45% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Sources: Exhibit 57 - Bloomsburg University Official Enrollment Data, Fall Semesters 1999

through 2008. Exhibit 58 - Bloomsburg University, Degrees Granted. Exhibit 67 - Bloomsburg University, Total Graduate Enrollment by Race, Fall Semesters 1998 through 2008. The University’s only doctoral program, Audiology, graduated its first students in May 2006. The program is offered through the Audiology and Speech Pathology Department, which has successfully operated both undergraduate and masters level programs for several decades. Both the number of students enrolled in graduate programs and the F.T.E. hours generated grew at a fairly steady pace through 2006. However, both enrollment and F.T.E. hours generated have begun to decline during the last two years. The University is currently reviewing the graduate enrollment data in an effort to develop strategies to reverse the decline. Approximately fifty-six percent of the students are part-time which explains why most of the graduate programs offer many of their classes in the evening. In the summer, many of the graduate programs in education experience a spike in enrollment as K through 12 teachers return to work on graduate degrees. In addition to offering the graduate students the same resources and support infrastructure that are available to undergraduate students, the University also operates the Office of Graduate

66

Studies and Research. That office coordinates all graduate programs and activities on campus and serves as the principle service area for both current and potential graduate students. Additional discussion of the University’s graduate programs can be found in Chapter Seven. Student Athletes As a NCAA Division II school, the University’s student athletes must comply with all NCAA academic eligibility requirements as well as all policies and procedures applicable to any other student attending the institution. In addition to all the support services that are available to other students, many of the athletic teams have mandatory study periods and provide mentors for their athletes. The various coaching staffs also send out progress report requests to the athletes’ instructors each semester and arrange tutoring for students who are having difficulty with their coursework. Like the rest of the student body, the student athletes are responsible for making up all missed assignments and exams. Class Attendance policy PRP 3506 [Exhibit 68] states that “regular classroom attendance is expected of all students.” Students who participate in a “university-sponsored activity” “will be afforded reasonable assistance by a faculty member” if the absence results from “extenuating circumstances beyond the student’s control.” The policy leaves it up to the student and instructor to determine what, if any, special consideration will be granted. In addition to all the financial support options available to other students, the University’s student athletes are eligible for a limited number of athletic scholarships and other financial support approved by the NCAA. All financial assistance to the University’s student athletes is closely monitored by the NCAA. Student Services The University has created a coordinated student services center, the Warren Student Services Center, which is centrally located in the middle of the lower campus. Most of the academic support services available to the student body are housed in this one facility, which allows for easy referral and coordination of services for students requiring assistance. Examples of the student services provided at the center and elsewhere on campus include:

Living Learning Communities Counseling Center TRiO Student Support Services DAWN Program Academic Advisement Community Government Association Adult Advisement Writing Center Accommodative Services Developmental Instruction Residence Life Office of Multicultural Affairs Career Development Center University Seminar Women’s Resource Center Day Care Center

Several of the student services are discussed in the following paragraphs.

67

Living Learning Communities The first Living Learning Communities (LLC) were established in 1996 to provide theme housing and support services for targeted students. Each year, at time of admission, all admitted freshmen receive a postcard encouraging them to examine the LLC web page. An LLC application is also included in the enrollment packet that is mailed to each student who pays a deposit. Currently there are eleven LLC: Business, Helping Professions, International Studies, Frederick Douglass, Civic Engagement, Honors, Social Justice, Education, Presidential Leadership, Sciences and Health Sciences, and Fine Arts & Humanities. The primary goals of the LLC are to provide students with opportunities to: meet people with similar interests; live with like-minded individuals; enjoy a quieter study environment; form stronger relationships with faculty; receive help through peer networking; take several courses during their freshmen year with other students from their learning community; participate in social and community service; and attend workshops and conferences. Academic Advisement The four professional staff in the Academic Advisement Center (AAC) are responsible for advising between 850 and 1,150 undeclared students who have not selected a major. The staff also process over 2,000 requests annually from students wanting to change their area of study (major, minor, career concentration, advisement area). The AAC also coordinates a variety of certificate programs. Each program is composed of a series of academic courses designed to meet the needs of individuals working in the region. Currently the Center offers the following certificate programs:

Certificate Programs Community Recreation Leader Gerontology Community Service Public Administration Environmental Planning Small Business/Entrepreneurship

Among the other programs that the AAC coordinates are the initial screenings for all Non-Traditional Students (older, first time, or returning students) and the Summer Freshman Program (contains approximately 400 conditional freshmen who must successfully complete 7 credits of coursework during the summer in order to qualify for admission into the University). Each fall, the Center conducts a Majors Fair where undeclared, as well as other students, can meet with faculty representatives from each major on campus. The Advisement Center also participates in open houses and freshmen orientation sessions and conducts advising workshops for new faculty.

68

Accommodative Services The Office of Accommodative Services for Students with Disabilities offers a wide range of services designed to support and enhance the performance of students with disabilities. Services include, but are not limited to, provision of accommodative testing, note-takers, scribes, interpreters, readers, auxiliary aids, adaptive equipment, and serving as a liaison between students and faculty in arranging classroom accommodations. The office also serves as an advocate for the student in issues of accommodation beyond the classroom and acts as a liaison with other campus services. Career Development Center The Career Development Center provides career planning assistance to all students and alumni. The Center maintains an up-to-date career library that contains occupational information, job search guides, employer/school district directories, corporate literature, graduate/professional school information, and the FOCUS and CareerBeam job search databases. In addition, the Center sponsors job search workshops, seminars, and job fairs; maintains credential files for students and alumni; and hosts employers wishing to interview students for internships or permanent employment. The Center uses the College Central Network on-line system for all on-campus recruiting activities. Seniors can place their resumes on line and apply for and schedule interviews over the internet. College Central also provides students with easy access to information about all of the Center’s events and activities. Approximately ninety days after graduation, the Center surveys all Bachelors’ degree recipients to determine employment status. An individual is considered employed if he or she has obtained meaningful employment, is serving in the armed forces, or has been admitted into graduate school. The following table provides a summary of the survey results.

Undergraduate Placement Rates 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Business 87.3% 91.1% 87.6% 84.6% 84.6% 90.2% 94.0% 90.2% Liberal Arts 92.0% 88.1% 87.4% 86.6% 86.6% 90.7% 91.0% 90.1% Professional Studies 88.9% 88.2% 90.4% 86.4% 86.4% 87.8% 88.4% 86.2% Science and Technology

Note 92.5% 90.5% 82.4% 82.4% 83.2% 83.5% 91.9%

Total 89.1% 89.3% 88.8% 85.6% 85.6% 88.9% 90.1% 89.1% Source: Exhibit 69 – Bloomsburg University, Class Follow-up Reports. Note: Prior to 2001 the College of Science and Technology was part of the College of

Liberal Arts.

69

Counseling Center The Center for Counseling and Human Development provides free counseling by professional psychological counselors. Any student who is currently enrolled in at least six credit hours of coursework at the University is eligible. Typical counseling concerns include: study skills; depression; relationship issues; stress management; assertiveness and effective communications; racism; sexism; homophobia; human sexuality; anxiety; drug and alcohol abuse; eating disorders; survivors of rape, incest, and sexual assault; family issues; and self-esteem issues. Every student has the right to a confidential relationship with a counselor. Normally, information shared in counseling will not be revealed outside the center without written permission from the student. Exceptions to this rule include cases of child abuse or neglect, elder abuse or neglect, and danger of imminent bodily harm to the student or another person. Information may also be released in response to a court subpoena. Writing Center The writing center is supervised by a faculty member from the English Department who is given a 50 percent release time reassignment to direct the program. The director employs approximately 25 trained student volunteers each semester who possess strong writing skills. These unpaid consultants provide approximately 500 free one-on-one consulting sessions each semester to all students, regardless of discipline or course, who wish to have writing assignments critiqued or who need assistance in developing writing projects. Each semester the writing center reaches out to faculty and students through flyers, bookmarks, emails, and web announcements on the Today page (http://www.bloomu.edu/today). Consultants are also available to visit classrooms to discuss their services or to conduct mass tutorial sessions. Currently, the center maintains a primary location in the Bakeless Center for the Humanities as well as satellite locations in Columbia Hall, Northumberland Hall, and the Andruss Library. Department of Developmental Instruction The Act101/ Educational Opportunities Program (Act101/EOP) program was established in 1971 by the Pennsylvania State Legislature to provide access and support to help equalize educational opportunities for students who have been traditionally underrepresented in higher education. The Department of Developmental Instruction is responsible for administering Act101/EOP at the University. There were 528 students enrolled in the program during fall 2008. Sixty percent of the students are women, twenty percent fall into the non traditional student age range, and about half are from historically underrepresented groups. All Act101/EOP students receive special instructional support, academic advising, counseling, tutoring, financial aid, and other assistance as necessary. Students admitted through this program take diagnostic tests to ensure correct placement in classes and, prior to their first regular semester of classes, most students participate in a summer program where special tutoring and counseling is given to address specific academic, financial and social needs.

70

Act101/EOP is one of the University’s programs that has not been able to reach its targeted retention goals. As a result, the program is currently reassessing its mentoring program in an effort to enhance student performance and retention. Office of Multicultural Affairs The Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA) was established to support the social and academic development of students from differing cultures through specific academic support services and to educate the entire academic community about multicultural issues. The office provides support to students who are United States citizens of African, Asian, Hispanic/Latino/Chicano and indigenous descent, disabled, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender individuals, women, and religious groups, as well as other protected classes. Programs offered include: the OMA Mentoring and Advisement Program; Latino Banquet; OMA Student and Faculty Advisory Board; study hall sessions; graduate school tours; Career Internship Expo; personal and professional development workshops; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Student Conference; First World Graduation Ceremonies; the Sankofa Conference; and the Multicultural Orientation Friends and Family Brunch. The Office also supports eighteen multicultural organizations on campus as well as six multicultural Greek Organizations. University Seminar The University Seminar program is a one credit course that is designed to aid students in their academic transition to the university environment. The course is available to all incoming students during their first semester on campus. As part of their initial admissions packet, students are informed about the program and encouraged to request to be enrolled in the course as part of their first semester schedule. Two colleges, Business, and Science and Technology, require all students within their majors to complete the University Seminar course as part of their graduation requirements. For two other programs, computer science, and engineering, the course is required by their national accreditation bodies. Several of the programs also provide their own faculty to teach seminar sections that are reserved for their majors. This allows the faculty to tailor the course content to their department’s program of study. The program is discussed further in Chapter Seven. Dissemination of Information to Students Bloomsburg University has been working for the last several years to make all forms and documents available to students in electronic formats. Although the project is not complete, the University web page (http://www.bloomu.edu) is currently the primary information resource for the entire campus community. Prospective students access an electronic university catalog and apply for admission to the University on line. Current students can access information about virtually any University resource or activity electronically, review current and past course catalogs on line, and register for courses electronically. In addition, the alumni office has its own dedicated web site to provide an interactive resource for the University’s alumni.

71

Web Improvement In 2006, at the request of the University President, a web improvement committee was appointed to coordinate the redesign of the University web site. The committee commissioned Creosote Affects to conduct a comprehensive review of the university web pages [Exhibit 70]. The results of the study were widely disseminated to members of the campus community and discussed for more than a year. In fall 2008 a preliminary feasibility study will begin to better define the scope, cost and timeline for the redesign. It is anticipated that the redesign and migration to the new web site should take approximately 18 months to complete. Electronic Security Because of the pivotal role that technology plays in every aspect of University life, the Office of Technology has initiated a Technology Disaster Recovery/Continuity Plan [Exhibit 71] to provide recovery and continuous technology services in the event of a disaster. The plan concentrates the University’s efforts toward retention of mission-critical systems that directly affect the overall campus community. These systems and services include the mainframe Student Information System, the campus data and voice network, key services that provide email, web services and centralized file storage, off campus connection to the internet, and local/long distance telephone services which are considered mission critical. In the event of a technology disaster, the plan documents a systematic response by the Office of Technology staff, a method to provide temporary operations, and a strategy to permanently restore services to their pre-disaster status. The Office of Technology is also responsible for the security of all electronic data and information systems on campus. That security includes sophisticated firewalls, user tracking systems, a series of password systems that require all campus users to update their passwords every 90 days, and other unpublished procedures and systems. Other Key Information Sources Every student receives a copy of the Pilot [Exhibit 72] each year. This is the official student guide. It provides official information on all policies and procedures that affect students at the University. Examples include the academic dishonesty policy, academic performance standards, procedures for filing a grievance, and available campus resources. The Pilot is extensively reviewed and updated each year to ensure that all of the information is current and accurate. The Kehr Union information desk, located in the main lobby of the student union, is known as “the place to go for things you need to know.” This desk is staffed by knowledgeable student workers whenever the Union is open. An information table also provides a broad range of brochures that disseminate useful information to students about services provided by the University and the local community. Each year the Orientation Office helps students to adapt to life at the University by preparing an orientation packet which is given out to all new freshmen and their families during their initial one day orientation in June. The packet contains the New at BU Orientation Guide, a campus

72

map, an Academic Calendar with a quick guide to important resources at Bloomsburg, an Orientation Workshop Leaders Flyer, the brochure “A few words on wise decisions,” a letter to students and their parents from the Mayor of the Town of Bloomsburg, its Chief of Police, and its Code Enforcement Officer, and assorted other brochures. Financial Aid Most of the students who attend the University qualify for some form of financial aid, and without that assistance most could not afford to remain enrolled at the institution. In recognition of that fact, the Office of Financial Aid is prominently located next to the Admissions Office on the main floor of the Warren Student Services Center. In addition, the staff makes financial aid presentations at all visitation days and summer orientation sessions. They also work one-on-one with families requesting assistance in identifying funding or completing applications. A full range of needs-based financial aid is available to all students enrolled at the University. The aid includes student employment, grants, scholarships, and low-interest loans. In fall 2007 seventy-seven percent of the full-time undergraduate students enrolled in degree programs at the University received some form of financial aid. The scholarship and grant funds awarded that semester totaled $17,593,528, loans and work study wages totaled $34,428,760, and other awards and waivers totaled $8,733,417. In total, the students received over 60 million dollars in aid [Exhibit 73]. Many of the students qualified for, and received, more than one form of financial support. Unfortunately, the University does not have a large scholarship endowment. During fall 2007 the University was able to award only $1,162,119 in scholarships. Since most of the scholarships awarded were for the entire academic year, that amount is a good approximation of the total annual academic scholarship dollars currently awarded by the University [Exhibit 73] Student Rights To protect the individual rights of all of its students, the University has instituted a series of Policies, Rules and Procedures (PRP) that are periodically reviewed and updated to ensure that they comply with all related federal and state statutes. The students’ rights and responsibilities under each PRP, as well as instructions on how to file a grievance, are discussed in detail in the Pilot (the student handbook) [Exhibit 72]. The key PRP [Exhibit 74] are:

• PRP 2060: Americans with Disabilities Grievances • PRP 3557: Academic Dismissal and Appeals Procedure • PRP 3592: Academic Grievance Procedure • PRP 4020: Student Harassment Policy and Procedure • PRP 4842: Campus Judicial Policy • PRP 4862: Student Non-Academic Grievance Policy • PRP 6814: Harassment and Discrimination Policy

73

Each PRP contains a formal procedure to adjudicate any grievance filed under the policy while simultaneously protecting the rights of all parties to the grievance and ensuring resolution of the matter in an expeditious manner. To ensure easy access, all University PRPs are available for public review on the University’s webpage (http://www.bloomu.edu/policies/). Other Educational Offerings In an attempt to provide quality educational experiences to constituencies in a variety of traditional and non-traditional settings, Bloomsburg University offers several nontraditional programs on Campus as well as at a variety of remote locations. Advance College Experience (ACE) Program-High School in College The University offers courses to over 100 high school students from approximately 20 regional school districts. Qualified high school juniors and seniors, with their school district’s permission, take regular for-credit courses at the University during the academic year. In addition, the University offers selected courses at two local high schools in the Benton and Shikellamy school districts. Off Campus and Remote Offerings The University offers several courses in Psychology, Biology, Mathematics, History, English, and other disciplines at off-campus locations in Sunbury, and Danville. These locations serve over 125 non-traditional students. Degree Completion programs The University has partnered with Luzerne County Community College and Lehigh Carbon County Community College to provide an on-site completion program in Elementary Education. Students who have completed an associate’s degree in education at one of the two community colleges, and who meet the Bloomsburg University Elementary Education Department’s admission requirements, are guaranteed acceptance into the program. All classes beyond the associate’s level are conducted on-site at the community colleges by Bloomsburg University faculty. Approximately 50 students are currently enrolled in the program. Remote Courses The University currently offers several remote courses in the Nursing, Instructional Technology and Exceptionality programs. The students complete the remote courses utilizing a variety of technologies from web pages to interactive video conferencing. Other academic departments at the University are currently exploring the feasibility of offering their courses remotely.

74

Dixon University Center Harrisburg Pa. The University’s American Sign Language/English Interpreting Program offers an opportunity for skill development and enhancement for educational interpreters. The sequence of courses was developed with the specific needs of educational interpreters in mind. Courses are geared toward non-traditional students with online, evening and weekend courses available at the PASSHE’s Dixon Center in Harrisburg Pa. The program is run by the Department of Exceptionality Programs. During the 2007-08 academic year, the Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology received concept approval to offer a M.Ed. in Speech Pathology off campus. The program will be offered as a hybrid program at the Dixon Center. It will combine traditional classroom and distance learning with on-site field-based experiences in partnership with educational agencies in Pennsylvania. Several courses in the proposed program were offered at the Dixon Center during the summer of 2008. Corporate and Continuing Education The division of Corporate and Continuing Education provides educational programs for people of all ages at the University’s Magee Center which is located 1.5 miles from campus at the west end of town. Instructors include qualified individuals from the region as well as University faculty and staff. A variety of non credit classes are offered. They include: mini-courses, CDL Class A and Class B prep courses, human capital and workforce training, business and professional training, and computer training. During the 2007 – 2008 academic year, 1,431 individuals participated in mini-courses, and 76 workforce training programs were conducted at client worksites where 2,604 employees received customized instruction. University Employee Training In addition to encouraging its employees to pursue undergraduate and graduate degrees on campus, the University provides them with a wide variety of other educational opportunities. Through training opportunities provided by the offices of Social Equity, Corporate and Continuing Education, Instructional Technology, and Human Resources, employees are able to enhance their skills and increase their personal and professional development. A sampling of these courses include: negotiation and customer service; instruction in utilization of Microsoft Office programs at all levels of proficiency; administrative communication; leadership training; and training in CPR and in safeguarding oneself and others. An online newsletter, available on the Human Resources web site (http://www.bloomu.edu/hr/), also addresses issues such as caring for your parents and other topics that are of personal benefit to the members of the University’s workforce.

75

Recommendation Even though student retention is one of the primary goals of the University’s Strategic Plan, students who withdraw from the University receive no formal counseling as part of the withdrawal process and there is no exit interview to determine why they are withdrawing.

Recommendation 6: A formal process for withdrawal from the University should be instituted that includes notification of the student’s advisor and department chair, a counseling session with an advisor, and an exit interview with a designated administrator.

Justification

• The current withdrawal practices simply require students to complete and deliver a University Withdrawal Form to the Registrar’s Office.

• The instructors of the courses the student is enrolled in and the department chair of the students major are only notified after the withdrawal form has been processed.

• There is no formal exit interview to determine why the student decided to leave the University.

Process In order to reduce the number of individuals who withdraw from the University it is necessary to understand their motives for leaving. Some of these withdrawals might be avoided if each student was required to complete a formal withdrawal process that includes a meeting with an advisor. More importantly, the students would have an opportunity to meet with someone who may be able to help them through the decision process and present clear options to them.

76

CHAPTER SEVEN

EDUCATIONAL OFFERINGS AND GENERAL EDUCATION

Standards 11 & 12 The Middle States Commission on Higher Education statements regarding the standards discussed in this chapter are:

Standard 11: Educational Offerings

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.

Standard 12: General Education

The institution’s curricula are designed so that students acquire and demonstrate college-level proficiency in general education and essential skills, including at least oral and written communication, scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical analysis and reasoning, and technological competency.

Methodology A fourteen member working group was assigned to review the University’s educational offerings and general education curriculum. The review included examination of University Catalogs, minutes of the Bloomsburg University Curriculum Committee, relevant policies and procedures documents, and the reports of several committees who have reviewed curricular matters recently. Analysis Bloomsburg University constantly seeks to meet the varied educational needs of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The current University mission statement specifically addresses the need for a broad range of educational opportunities for students.

While maintaining programs for which Bloomsburg has been traditionally recognized, such as those in business and education, the university has identified strategic directions that include programs in health-related fields; programs that promote student-faculty interaction in teaching, learning, and research; programs that emphasize regional, national, international, and environmental concerns; and programs that incorporate the application of technology into instruction. (Bloomsburg University Mission Statement approved July 1987) [Exhibit 75]

As a comprehensive masters institution, the University has 32 academic departments that currently offer 99 undergraduate degrees/tracks, 45 undergraduate minors, 5 undergraduate

77

concentrations, 17 graduate programs leading to a master’s degree, a doctorate in audiology, as well as 2 supervisory certificate programs for professional educators. All of the programs are consistent with the University’s overall mission as a four-year, public institution, and support the mission of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. The following table shows several of the key academic statistics broken down by college.

Key Academic Statistics

Statistic

Total College of Business

College of Liberal Arts

College of Professional

Studies

College of Science and Technology

Academic Departments 32 6 14 5 7 Undergraduate Degrees and Tracks (Note 1)

99 8 38 21 32

Undergraduate Minor 45 8 23 2 12 Career Concentration 5 4 1 0 0 Masters Degrees 17 2 2 10 3 Doctorate (Au.D.) 1 0 0 1 0 Supervisory Certificate 2 0 0 2 0 Number of Approved Undergraduate Courses (Note 2)

1478 129 833 181 335

Number of Approved Graduate Courses

441 63 82 242 54

Total Approved Courses 1919 192 915 423 389 Source: Exhibit 76 – Bloomsburg University Undergraduate Academic Catalog, 2008-2009 Academic Year. Note 1: The University offers 57 approved undergraduate degrees. However, several

departments offer multiple specialized tracks within one degree. For instance, Exercise Science offers tracts in Clinical Exercise, Coaching, Corporate Fitness, and Adventure Leadership, all of which lead to a B.S. in Exercise Science.

Note 2: Includes 9 developmental courses whose credits are not counted toward graduation. Courses/Programs Bloomsburg University has a dynamic undergraduate curriculum which is constantly undergoing review and change in response to the evolving educational needs of both its students and their prospective employers. Each year, the Bloomsburg University Curriculum Committee (BUCC) approves dozens of new courses, as well as several new majors, minors, concentrations, and certificate programs. The following table lists the new programs created since the last Middle States reaccreditation visit in 1999.

78

New Degree Programs

College of Business

College of Liberal Arts

College of Professional Studies

College of Science and Technology

Masters/Doctoral Programs

Music Education K-12

Electronics Engineering Technology

Doctorate in Audiology

Computer Forensics Masters in Curriculum and Instruction with Certification

Masters in Radiologist Assistant

Masters in Guidance Counseling and Student Affairs

Masters in Clinical Athletic Training

New Minors, Concentrations, and Certificate Programs Minor in Entrepreneurship

Minor in Ethnic Studies

Minor in Educational Technology

Minor in Computer Science/Web Development

Minor in Office Information Systems

Minor in Criminal Justice

eLearning Certificate Program

Minor in Computer Forensics

Concentration in Fraud Examination

Minor in Professional Writing

ESL Program Specialist Certificate Program

Minor in Creative Writing

Minor in Chinese Studies

Course Development The University continuously addresses the needs of its students through a careful analysis of existing instructional offerings and the creation of new courses and programs of study that relate to the institution’s strategic plans. All proposals involving changes and/or additions to the existing curriculum must undergo a well documented approval process. To ensure that every curriculum proposal undergoes a thorough review, Document P – Omnibus Course and Program Development Cover Sheet (Omnibus Form) [Exhibit 77] must accompany each curricular proposal. The Omnibus Form provides a precise checklist for the review of each type of curriculum proposal and requires approval signatures at each step in the process. A proposal can not move on to the next step in the approval process until the Omnibus Form is signed off at the current review level. For most curricular requests, final approval rests with the University Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. However, because the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education has final oversight over the curriculum offered by the University, several curricular changes must

79

also receive a positive review by the University President, the University Council of Trustees, and ultimately either the PASSHE Board of Governors or the PASSHE staff. Final approval must be attained from the Board of Governors or the state system staff for the following curricular items:

• New Degree Program (Board of Governors) • New Degree Designation (Board of Governors) • Minor where no major already exists (State System Staff) • Certificate Program where no major or minor exists (State System Staff) • Non-Degree Certificate Program (State System Staff) • Program Deletion – Informed, no action required (State System Staff) • Program Placed in Moratorium – Informed, no action required (State System Staff)

As part of the Omnibus Form, all curricular proposals must include the rationale for making the request, anticipated resource requirements, and the impact, if any, on the operating units who would be affected by the change. All curricular proposals requiring PASSHE approval must comply with the following state system requirements:

Each program proposal shall emanate from an institutional program approval process, which assures appropriate faculty, administrative, and trustee review. The proposal shall include, depending upon type of program, sufficient information relative to the intellectual value, student demand, regional and national market demand for program completers, as appropriate, and value to such things as student breadth, faculty vitality, and community enhancement. The proposal shall include information on the plan for continuing assessment of student learning outcomes and periodic institutional, professional, and regional accreditation reviews, as well as plans to seek specialized accreditation, if appropriate. (PASSHE Policy 1985-01, Exhibit 78)

Each academic college has an internal curriculum committee that conducts the initial review of all curricular proposals emanating from within the college. However, the primary campus oversight committee for all curricular requests is the Bloomsburg University Curriculum Committee (BUCC). The BUCC is composed of 14 voting faculty members, 10 elected from across the campus community and 1 each chosen by the University’s four college level curriculum committees. In addition, there are ex-officio members representing the administration and the student body. The committee’s role is clearly explained in the BUCC bylaws [Exhibit 23]:

The BUCC shall serve as the faculty recommending body to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs on all matters that affect the development, modification, change, adoption, and implementation of the curriculum.

80

Furthermore, the BUCC shall provide procedures and mechanisms for the systematic review, evaluation, and change of the curriculum at the institution-wide level. In addition, all such procedures and mechanisms shall be in compliance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Bloomsburg University/State System of Higher Education and APSCUF. The BUCC will be responsible for acting upon curricular proposals at the institution-wide level, will serve as a coordinating committee of the curricular proposals emanating from all components of the academic community, will serve as a faculty advisory committee to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs recommendations for improving the curriculum at Bloomsburg University. (Bylaws, Bloomsburg University Curriculum Committee)

Sources of Curricular Change Academic policy PRP 3230 – Course and Program Development [Exhibit 79], states that:

The development of academic programs is a crucial aspect of the long-range well-being of the University. New programs must be mounted as student and societal needs become known. Existing programs facing declining enrollments become subject to review so that adjustment steps may be taken. In some cases a program may have to face the possibility of discontinuation. Courses within programs go through a similar evolutionary cycle.

Curricular change at the University is usually initiated by one of the following actions. As part of their comprehensive five-year cyclical review, each academic department is required to critically evaluate all curricular offerings using appropriate outcomes assessment practices. This includes an outside review by an individual familiar will the field of study under review. Traditionally, these reviews have been the source of many of the requests for curricular changes. As documented elsewhere in this self-study, several departments and programs at the University are accredited by one or more national/ international accrediting and licensing bodies. Many curricular changes occur because the various accreditation bodies make changes in their recommended curriculums. For instance, the Pennsylvania Department of Education recently revised the state-wide teacher certification requirements. Thus, all teacher education programs offered at the University are currently being revised to comply with the new guidelines. Finally, in order to adequately prepare students for the constantly changing labor market, many departments have had to engage in ongoing reviews of their curricula. New programs have been designed, course offerings revised, and some old programs terminated. For example, because of the rise in white collar and computer-related crime, the University has developed a major in computer forensics and a concentration in fraud examination.

81

Course Requirements for Graduation The University has several processes in place to aid both current and prospective students in understanding the specific course requirements of all undergraduate and graduate programs currently being offered by the institution. The University Catalog, which is available electronically at http://www.bloomu.edu/catalog/, provides complete course requirements, course sequence sheets, and curriculum worksheets for each major, as well as descriptions for all courses currently being offered. In addition, each department has developed a Graduation Requirements Sheet [Exhibit 66] which it issues to its majors and faculty advisors. The worksheet identifies all course requirements for the major and serves as a check sheet that enables both the student and the advisor to monitor the candidate’s progress toward graduation. Transfer Credits The Legislature of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania recognized that the transferability of courses is paramount to accommodating students wishing to transfer from one institution to another. Accordingly, the Legislature has required all PASSHE institutions to standardize the process for transfer of credits among two and four year public institutions within the Commonwealth. The Pennsylvania Department of Education has responded by establishing a system-wide data base to assist students in identifying course equivalencies between schools. The University has already identified over 1,000 course equivalencies. Those courses are now part of the state system database. In addition, the University developed its own internal BATS (Bloomsburg Articulation and Transfer System) database that allows administrators, academic advisors and admissions counselors to identify specific course transfer equivalencies for a broad range of public and private institutions throughout several eastern states. The BATS database has immeasurably expedited the evaluation of transfer credits. Students The University recognizes that the best curriculum in the world is irrelevant if students are not engaged. Accordingly, the University has taken several actions designed to engage students in the learning process. Informing Students The University recognizes that a student who understands the purpose of a course usually performs better than one who does not. In an effort to ensure that each student receives a broad range of information at the beginning of each course, the University has two academic policies that detail the minimum information that the instructor must provide to each student. Academic policy PRP 3233 – Required Format for Course Syllabi for BUCC Approval [Exhibit 54], provides specific guidelines relative to the minimum content to be included in the syllabi for all courses taught at the University. The primary content items include:

82

• Prerequisites • Catalog Description: Should reflect the general aims and nature of the course. • Goals and/or Objectives: May be general goals, specific objectives, behavioral

objectives, or other indications of the aims of the course. • Content Outline • Methods • Evaluation Procedures • Supporting Materials • Text

Academic policy PRP 3264 – Student Course Requirements and Progress Information [Exhibit 80], provides specific course requirement guidelines that instructors must distribute to their students via paper, electronic mail, or the course web site during the first week of classes. The information includes:

• Procedures for determining each letter grade. • Any relationship of class attendance to the course. • Any other course requirements. • Weighting of requirements for grade computation. • Procedures for making up tests or other work missed through excused absences.

Traditionally, faculty members combine the required content of both policies and include all of the information in their course syllabi. Freshman Year Experience The University has developed several initiatives that are intended to increase the potential for students to succeed in the classroom. The combination of these initiatives is referred to as the Freshman Year Experience. A key component of that experience is the 1 credit University Seminar Course. The course is designed to introduce first semester freshmen to the tools they need to succeed at the University. In addition to discussing a broad range of academic issues ranging from academic integrity to remaining in good academic standing, students are introduced to the plethora of services provided by the University. Students also learn how to use the resources in the library and how to navigate the other electronic networks at the University. Many of the University Seminar sections are reserved for students in specific majors, departments or developmental programs, and are taught by instructors from those areas. For instance, the College of Business has several dedicated sections taught by business faculty. The course content is geared specifically towards the needs of students majoring in business. The University Seminar course has steadily grown in popularity since its inception in 1995. The following table shows the extent of that growth.

83

University Seminar Course

Enrollment 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Fall Freshmen 1,426 1,692 1,487 1,671 1,542 1,697 1,644 1,685 1811 University Seminar 269 531 593 800 996 1,211 1,227 1,323 1464 Percent in Seminar Class 19% 31% 40% 48% 65% 71% 75% 79% 81%

Study Abroad The Office of International Education provides assistance to students who wish to complement their traditional undergraduate education with an international component. The various Study Abroad programs are operated at the individual college level and are intended to cultivate an interdisciplinary perspective and foster an understanding of ethnic and national diversity. The immersion of the University’s students in different areas of international study helps them understand the interdependence of nations and enables them to better understand the world in which they live and work. The University currently offers exchange programs with universities in 14 countries. However, as the following statistics indicate, relatively few students take advantage of this opportunity.

Number of Students Studying Abroad 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Study Abroad Enrollment 16 24 29 27 71 48 68 76 Practicum The University has several programs which require some form of practicum as part of their degree requirements. For instance, all education tracts require a variety of teaching experiences over the course of a student’s academic studies. Most health-related programs at both the undergraduate and graduate levels require clinical experiences. Although not required, all programs in the College of Business recommend an internship experience. Finally, the Instructional Technology graduate program has incorporated working with business partners into their curriculum. Students are also exposed to the practical aspects of various disciplines through an assortment of academic-related organizations on campus. Most disciplines at the University have one or more clubs or organizations that bring speakers to campus, allow students to participate in regional and national conferences, visit work sites, enter discipline-related competitions, or conduct other activities that enable the members to apply their new skills and knowledge. Graduate Programs Oversight of graduate programs is provided by the Graduate Council and the Assistant Vice President and Dean of Graduate Studies and Research. In addition to an internal college review, all graduate curricular proposals must be reviewed by the Graduate Council prior to submission to the BUCC.

84

Several academic policies have been formulated that are specific to the graduate program. The key policies [Exhibit 81] are:

• PRP 3223 – Graduate Degree Programs • PRP 3449 – Graduate Courses in Senior Year • PRP 3463 – Graduate Admissions, Withdrawal, Course Repeat, Transfers, and

Graduation Requirements • PRP 3565 – Graduate Academic Progress, Probation, and Dismissal • PRP 3870 – Graduate Faculty Appointment • PRP 3880 – Graduate Course Repeat

The collective bargaining agreement between the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties and PASSHE prohibits masters degree candidates from teaching lecture courses or supervising laboratory periods. Accordingly, the University has no academic policies that address the issue of graduate students teaching classes. All graduate programs except Biology and Reading are accredited by one or more national/ international accrediting bodies. In addition, all but five of the programs use some form of external examination to validate the level of relevant knowledge possessed by their graduates. The remaining programs use candidacy exams, comprehensive examinations, or other forms of outcomes assessment measures to evaluate their graduates. The following table summarizes the status of the University’s active graduate programs.

Active Graduate Programs

Program Accreditation,

Approval Agency National

Examinations Candidacy or

Comprehensive Examinations

Faculty Graduate Qualified

Other Forms Of Outcomes Assessment

Audiology ASHA; CAA PRAXIS + + Biology + + Business. Education PDE; NCATE PRAXIS + Counseling CACREP (In Process) PRAXIS + Deaf/Hard of Hearing CED PRAXIS + + + Early Childhood PDE; NCATE + Ed. Studies/El. Ed. NCATE; PDE PRAXIS + Exercise Science ASEP; CAAHEP + Instructional Technology

PDE PRAXIS + + +

Nursing CCNE AANC + + + MBA AACSB International ETS Major

Field Test; Iliad Assessment

+ + +

Radiologist Asst. ARRT + + + Reading PRAXIS + Speech Pathology ASHA; CAA; NCATE;

PDE PRAXIS + +

Special Ed./ Exceptionalities

PDE; Council for Exceptional Children (Aligned)

PRAXIS + +

Note: Some programs, such as Biology (MS, MEd), offer more than one type of graduate degree.

85

In compliance with PRP 3870 – Graduate Faculty Appointment [Exhibit 82], faculty members awarded graduate faculty status must have a demonstrated record of research and publishing and must hold a terminal degree appropriate for the courses they teach in the graduate program. They must also be qualified to guide and evaluate the research and other creative activities of their graduate students. The University recognizes that the awarding of a graduate degree implies that the recipient is capable of conducting independent research and can think critically at an advanced level. Therefore, each graduate program has a structured research component. The following table identifies those research components.

Graduate Programs – Research Component

Program Specific Research Course

Specific Research Projects

Thesis or Directed Study

Other Research Opportunities

Audiology + + Biology + Business Education + Counseling + Deaf/Hard of Hearing + Early Childhood + Ed. Studies/Sec. Ed. + Exercise Science + Instructional Technology + Nursing + + Optional + MBA + Radiologist Asst. + Reading + Speech Pathology + + Special Ed/Exceptionalities + + Optional +

In accordance with the University and PASSHE missions, all of the graduate programs have been created to fulfill the regional and national need for trained professionals in the business, education and health care fields. Additional discussion of the University’s graduate programs can be found in Chapter Six. General Education The University’s general education requirements have remained basically unchanged since they were reviewed over 20 years ago. The goals of the general education program are explained in PRP 3612 [Exhibit 46]. The program is designed to give students an opportunity to develop:

• an ability to communicate effectively. • an ability to think analytically and quantitatively.

86

• a facility to make independent and responsible value judgments and decisions according to high ethical values and life-long goals.

• an appreciation of the need for fitness and lifelong recreation skills. • a capacity for assessing the validity of ideas and an understanding of the approaches used

to gain knowledge through development of critical thinking abilities. • a greater appreciation of literature, art, music, and theatre through stimulation of one's

creative interests. • an understanding of our society and the relative position of an individual in this society. • an understanding of the relationship between an individual to his/her physical and

biological environments. • a familiarity with the major contributions of human knowledge in the humanities, social

sciences, and mathematics. • an awareness and global understanding of the relative position of the individual in the

world community.

Each student normally takes a minimum of 53 credits in general education subjects. The University’s general education requirements are:

1. Communication - Nine Credits

a. Two courses (six credits) consisting of Composition 1 (20.101) and one of the university approved second level writing or writing-intensive literature courses. b. One additional course (three credits) from the approved list of communication courses.

2. Quantitative/Analytical Reasoning - Three Credits from the approved list of quantitative/analytical reasoning courses.

3. Values, Ethics, and Responsible Decision-Making - Three Credits from the approved list of values, ethics, and responsible decision-making courses.

4. Fitness and Recreation Skills - Two Credits from the approved list of fitness and lifelong recreation skill courses.

5. Diversity Requirement - Six Credits (two courses from different departments) which are from an approved list of diversity focused courses. (These credits double count to fulfill other general education or major requirements.)

6. Thirty six (36) credits with 12 credits from each of the three general academic areas of humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences and mathematics. No more than six credits from a given academic major may count toward this requirement.

• Group A--Humanities, 12 Credits - Twelve credits from courses in at least three different humanities departments must be represented in these 12 credits with two or more credits taken from each department selected. The humanities departments

87

include Art, Communication Studies and Theatre Arts, English, History, Languages and Cultures, Mass Communications, Music, and Philosophy.

• Group B--Social Sciences, 12 Credits -Twelve credits from at least three different social sciences departments must be represented in these 12 credits with two or more credits taken from each department selected. The social sciences departments include Anthropology, Economics, Geography and Geosciences (courses with “41” numbers), Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology and Social Work and Criminal Justice.

• Group C--Natural Sciences and Mathematics, 12 Credits- Twelve credits from at least three different natural sciences and mathematics departments must be represented in these 12 credits with two or more credits taken from each department selected. Natural sciences and mathematics departments include Biological and Allied Health Sciences, Chemistry, Geography and Geosciences (courses with "51" numbers), Mathematics and Computer Science (courses with "53" numbers), and Physics and Engineering Technology (courses with "54" numbers).

As reported in Chapter Five, the University utilizes the Educational Testing Services Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress Test (MAPP) to measure proficiency in reading, writing, mathematics, and critical thinking. The MAPP results indicate that freshmen enter the University with a lower level of knowledge in general subjects than students nationally. However, once they complete their general education core courses, their level of knowledge equals or exceeds peer cohorts.

Student Survey

A student survey [Exhibit 83] containing questions regarding perceptions of various aspects of the University’s general education curriculum was completed electronically by approximately 400 of the University’s undergraduates. The respondents were divided with regard to the utility of the general education requirements. About a third felt that the general education requirements will help them in their future career, a third were neutral, and a third did not believe the courses will be of help to them. The students who were nearing completion of their general education requirements were less convinced of the future usefulness of general education courses than the freshmen. However, 57 percent of all respondents believed that the general education courses they took will help them become more well-rounded individuals. Only 20 percent of the respondents reported that they were not sure why the University requires them to take general education courses. Students in nursing and education reported more concern about the relevancy of general education courses to their future career than students in other disciplines. As a whole, the data does suggest that some students fail to grasp the importance of general education courses in developing a broad range of basic skills and core knowledge expected of every college graduate. Overall, only 11 percent of the respondents reported that input from their advisor was not important and only 10 percent would oppose “requiring” students to meet with their advisor regularly. These results are consistent with the fact that 79 percent of the respondents reported that they met with their advisor at least once a semester. These responses would indicate that most of the students do have good working relationships with their advisor.

88

Approximately 60 percent of the survey respondents supported the replacement of the English Composition 2 requirement with a writing intensive course in their own college or major while only 36 percent of the respondents supported the idea of requiring more courses that focus on writing skills. Many respondents seemed to desire discipline specific-writing instruction over writing instruction geared toward a more general audience. With respect to technology, 90 percent of the respondents supported the inclusion of courses that specifically focus on the use of technology. Business majors were particularly enthusiastic about the idea of including more technology courses in the curriculum. Faculty Survey As part of a larger Middle States Self-Study survey presented elsewhere in this report [Exhibit 3], the faculty were asked about the University’s general education curriculum. The percentages of the full-time faculty who completed the survey were: College of Business, 86 percent; College of Liberal Arts, 43 percent, College of Professional Studies, 50 percent; and College of Science and Technology, 69 percent. The responses to two particular survey questions have been chosen for inclusion here because they convey the sense of the faculty regarding two core components of the general education curriculum at the University. The following table summarizes the faculty’s responses to the questions.

Selected Survey Questions on General Education Curriculum Total

Survey Responses

College of Business

College of Liberal Arts

College of Professional

Studies

College of Science and Technology

Question 34 – I am: a. Pleased with the ability of our students to write well.

7% 5% 9% 13% 7%

b. Concerned that students exhibit difficulty in writing well.

34% 53% 43% 45% 37%

c. Very concerned with the inability of students to write effectively.

27% 33% 35% 17% 44%

d. No opinion. 10% 2% 0% 8% 3% e. Did not respond to the question 22% 7% 13% 17% 9%

Question 35 – I am: a. Pleased with the ability of our students to think critically.

9% 5% 13% 20% 8%

b. Concerned that students exhibit difficulty in thinking critically.

39% 67% 49% 48% 37%

c. Very concerned with the inability of students to think critically.

20% 17% 26% 7% 43%

d. No opinion. 10% 7% 0% 7% 3% e. Did not respond to the question 22% 4% 12% 18% 9%

The responses to Questions 34 and 35 clearly indicate that the vast majority of the faculty are concerned about both the writing and critical thinking abilities of the University’s students. With

89

the exception of the College of Professional Studies, over 1/3 of the faculty were very concerned with the ability of students to write effectively. The College of Science and Technology had, by far, the greatest concern about the students’ critical thinking skills. This broad consensus of opinion would indicate that the faculty believe that students need additional work in both areas.

In response to concerns about student writing skills, in spring 2006, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs created a university-wide Writing Strategy Task Force. The Task Force gathered information from the review of existing University programs, faculty experiences, opinion surveys, and conversations with administrators and department chairs who were knowledgeable about writing opportunities and deficiencies on campus. They also conducted a selective review of writing programs at several peer colleges/universities. Based on their work, the Task Force made the following recommendations [Exhibit 84]:

A. Continue introductory writing requirements/placement practices in English Composition 1 and Developmental Instruction courses as at present, pending conclusions developing from the review of General Education now being initiated. Meanwhile, encourage both departments to establish and implement internal assessment of these courses.

B. Create a subcommittee on review/revision of introductory writing requirements as part of the General Education review or to work in conjunction with that review. Members of the sub-committee should include at least one representative from each college as well as faculty with expertise in writing and writing-program theory/practice.

C. Formalize and accelerate the existing movement toward discipline-specific writing as the second-level requirement. Require each college to take responsibility for defining second-level course work appropriate to the disciplines involved, whether by individual department or by more general disciplinary groupings within the college. Identification of appropriate course content, development of any necessary new courses, and provision of staffing for those courses will be the responsibility and right of the college to determine.

D. Provide significantly expanded support for the University Writing Center, facilitating its increased function as a center for information and guidance on discipline-specific writing. Expanded support should include professional assistance in developing materials for discipline-specific writing, enlarging the Center web site to provide a central locus for online information on research tools and writing formats appropriate to specific disciplines, and hiring student consultants from a variety of disciplines to work knowledgeably with student clients in those disciplines. Encourage establishment of an Advisory Council, with representatives from all colleges, to work with the Writing Center Director on comprehensive service to a program of writing in the disciplines.

E. Consider instituting a competency/proficiency examination, perhaps after 45 or 60 credits, requiring a pass on the examination as a condition of graduation. Begin with discussion of this possibility in college councils of chairs and the BUCC open forum to explore positives and negatives of the proposal,

F. Develop adequate resources for support of ESL students, supporting the offering of ESL courses and providing tutorial help knowledgeable of the requirements and

90

expectations of academic writing. G. Disband the current University Writing Strategy Task Force in favor of smaller

committees with more focused expertise to address specific elements of a complex and increasingly comprehensive university writing program.

Many of the recommendations such as development of discipline-specific writing courses and enhancing the Writing Center are currently being implemented. Others, such as the competency examinations are still in the discussion stage. After reviewing the work of groups such as the Writing Strategy Task Force, conducting their own interviews and surveys, and examining the practices of peer institutions, the Middle States Self-Study Task Force on General Education issued the following summary of their findings and recommendations [Exhibit 85]:

• The goals of general education are not well communicated nor are they well understood by students.

• There is a serious disconnect between student and faculty perceptions of general education.

• The structure of the current general education requirements and programmatic constraints very much favors a route through general education that results in students, by and large, not achieving a significant number of the learning goals of general education.

• There are key components of general education goals that are not being met in a prescribed manner.

• There is currently no mechanism, nor a way to monitor, or enforce, the rational completion of general education requirements such that foundational skills are in place before more advanced coursework is attempted.

• Faculty views overwhelmingly support the notion that the general education goals of developing effective writing and critical thinking skills are not being met for many of our students.

• There are key differences of opinion by faculty in different colleges about student capabilities that suggest that there are different levels of expectations among the faculty.

Recognizing the urgency of addressing the Task Force’s preliminary findings, the Bloomsburg University Middle States Steering Committee on October 3, 2007 submitted a letter to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Chair of the Bloomsburg University Curriculum Committee (BUCC) recommending that a General Education Task Force be assembled to review the University’s General Education Curriculum [Exhibit 86]. In November 2007, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs created the General Education Task Force and gave it the following charge:

The General Education Task Force will develop an ongoing review process for the university’s general education program. The task force should engage the entire university community in the development of this process. The products of the task force deliberation will include:

91

• Review Bloomsburg University’s current general education program. The review should determine the general education needs of Bloomsburg University students and also consider the standards of accrediting, certification and licensure bodies that apply to the University and its curricula;

• Review Bloomsburg University’s current general education courses. The review should include an evaluation of whether or not each current general education course includes learning objectives and outcomes that are consistent with the learning objectives that have been established for our general education program;

• If needed, modify the university’s general education learning objectives based on the initial review of general education and as appropriate to satisfy the requirements of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education;

• Provide initial recommendations regarding possible modifications to the university’s general education program;

• Develop a strategic plan that provides for an on-going review of the general education program and includes a permanent committee structure and a long-range general education assessment protocol that is based upon measurable or observable criteria;

• Provide recommendations on resources and faculty development needed to carry out any revisions to the general education program deemed necessary.

The General Education Task Force is expected to complete their work and deliver their final general education recommendations and related strategic plan to the Bloomsburg University Curriculum Committee (BUCC) by May 2010.

Additional discussion of the University’s general education program can be found in Chapter Five.

92

CHAPTER EIGHT

CONCLUSION

As part of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE) Bloomsburg University’s mission is to provide the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a quality education at an affordable cost. As this self-study has documented, the University has done an excellent job of fulfilling its mission. Through coordinated planning and assessment activities, the University has maintained an academically strong institution. As a result, the number of academic programs that have achieved national and international accreditation have steadily grown during the last decade. Much of the institution’s academic success can be attributed to the efforts of the University’s dedicated faculty and staff. The workforce at Bloomsburg University is very stable and consists of individuals who have a great deal of institutional pride and are dedicated to serving the intellectual and social needs of the students. Definitely, the faculty and staff are the most valuable resource that the institution possesses. Since the last decennial Middle States review in 1999, the University has experienced sustained enrollment growth while simultaneously increasing the academic quality of the student body. This includes systematically increasing the percentage of students who have been historically underrepresented. Of equal importance is the fact that the University has been able to maintain an overall second year retention rate of approximately 80 percent and a six-year graduation rate that has grown to 65 percent. The expanding enrollment levels have translated into increased tuition and state appropriation revenues which have enabled the University to remain financially strong. Accordingly, during the last decade, the University has been able to initiate several capital projects that have resulted in the renovation of most existing academic and student housing buildings, construction of additional classrooms, and erection of additional student housing units on campus. At the same time, the institution has been able to maintain a balanced budget. Retaining strong enrollment levels in the face of declining numbers of high school graduates after 2009 is one of the biggest challenges facing the University in the next decade. As was discussed in the body of the report, the Enrollment Management Steering Committee has developed a comprehensive plan to ensure that enrollment continues to remain strong for the foreseeable future. The current economic recession has resulted in a significant decline in anticipated state funding for the 2009-2010 academic year. Accordingly, the University has decided to increase total freshman enrollment by approximately 10 percent for the 2009-2010 academic year. The resulting increase in tuition and fees should be sufficient to enable the University to acquire the additional resources needed to serve the student body and to remain financially stable during this

93

period of economic turmoil. However, the current plan is dynamic and will continue to be re-evaluated as new financial and enrollment data becomes available. A great deal of the University’s current success can be attributed to its coordinated planning and assessment activities. Every department within the institution undertakes a variety of annual planning and assessment activities which are integrated into a comprehensive strategic plan for the University. This has resulted in a planning and assessment process that focuses primarily on the basic mission of the University, the clientele to be served, the major goals and objectives to be pursued, specific programmatic priorities, and the means by which the institution seeks to differentiate itself from other universities. This self-study, conducted as part of the Middle States reaccreditation process, has given Bloomsburg University an opportunity to conduct a critical self-evaluation. Although the results have reaffirmed that the University is strong academically and fiscally, the self-study has identified a variety of concerns that the institution needs to address. Each of these concerns is addressed in one or more of the following recommendations. Recommendation 1: A comprehensive review of the Bloomsburg University Mission Statement should be undertaken as part of the next planning cycle. Status at December 31, 2008: The review of the Mission Statement is incorporated into the development of the University’s next strategic plan which was begun near the end of the fall 2008 academic semester. Recommendation 2: A clear organizational structure needs to be defined between the Bloomsburg University Foundation and the University Office of Development. Status at December 31, 2008: Despite a PSAAHE initiated administrative hiring freeze, the University has received permission to hire a Vice President for University Advancement. The position has been advertised and should be filled by the beginning of the fall 2009 academic semester. The position will have joint oversight responsibilities for both the Foundation and Office of Development. Recommendation 3: A percentage of the annual budget should be assigned for the upkeep of academic and general purpose facilities. Status at December 31, 2008: Implementation of this recommendation has been deferred until the end of the current economic recession. Recommendation 4: Bloomsburg University should create an Office of Outcomes Assessment. Status at December 31, 2008: In fall 2008 a search was begun for a Director of Planning and Assessment. A subsequent administrative hiring freeze mandated by PASSHE means that the position will remain vacant until further notice.

94

Recommendation 5: Bloomsburg University should create an elected Outcomes Assessment Committee. Status at December 31, 2008: Creation of this committee has been postponed until a Director of Planning and Assessment can be hired. Recommendation 6: A formal process for withdrawal from the University should be instituted that includes notification of the student’s advisor and department chair, a counseling session with an advisor, and an exit interview with a designated administrator. Status at December 31, 2008: No action has been taken on this recommendation.

Postscript

All of the exhibits referenced in this report can be viewed on the accompanying CD.