Compliance Certification Report
| 2.5 | The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that incorporate a systematic review of programs and services that (a) results in continuing improvement and (b) demonstrates that the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission. (Institutional Effectiveness) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
[Compliance] |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Narrative: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) is in compliance with Principle 2.5 because all colleges and units of the institution engage in ongoing, integrated, research-based planning and evaluation. The Campus-Level Planning Processes: Campus Plan, Goals, Results, and Effectiveness document describes how UAH planning processes were integrated over the period from 1991 to 2005. The document delineates the integrated campus-wide initiatives "to make all possible efficiencies and savings in non-academic operations, dispose of non-essential assets and apply proceeds toward mission-critical needs, add needed facilities in cost-effective ways, expand federal support, increase enrollment, and tuition revenue through enhanced recruitment and improved retention of full-time students," (Campus-Level Planning Processes, p. 3) and "improve the campus environment and infrastructure" (Campus-Level Planning Processes, p. 42). Further, the Campus-Level Planning Processes document enables "us to improve student success, student satisfaction, and faculty and staff compensation as well as enhance the university's stature and effectiveness" (Campus-Level Planning Processes, p. 42). UAH's most recent formal planning document was submitted to the Alabama Commission on Higher Education (ACHE) in 2002 and was entitled the University of Alabama in Huntsville Institutional Goals, Assumptions, and Five-Year Plans. This document listed thirteen institutional goals, five planning assumptions, and five-year plans in seven different areas. The seven areas are: Institutional Accreditation, Faculty and Staff Compensation, Enrollment, Academic Programs, Research, Campus Environment, and Resources. The institutional goals are derived from the mission of UAH. For example, the mission of UAH states: "UAH is a key participant in one of the nation's major international centers for advanced technological research and utilizes its position in this environment to provide unique opportunities and creative programs for students, faculty, and the community." The fifth institutional goal states that "UAH will promote programs of space-related instruction, research, and service to enhance its national recognition as a leading Space Grant University." This goal is derived directly from the mission of UAH and the presence of a strong aerospace industry located in Huntsville, which supports the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. Similar connections can be provided for each of the institutional goals. The planning assumptions establish rational limits for the proposed five-year plans. Our planning assumptions realistically describe our environment, especially with respect to State appropriations. Three of the five assumptions are also linked to the mission of UAH. For example, the third planning assumption states "UAH supports the research, creative activity and scholarship expected of faculty of a research/doctoral university. UAH also has the special responsibility of creating interdisciplinary efforts that help support the research needs of NASA, the Army Aviation and Missile Command, and the science and technology entities in the Huntsville area." This assumption is linked to the portion of the mission of UAH noted above: "UAH is a key participant in one of the nation's major international centers for advanced technological research and utilizes its position in this environment to provide unique opportunities and creative programs for students, faculty, and the community." The five-year plans lay a foundation for the institutional planning, assessment, and improvement processes. Most of the objectives specified in the five-year plans have specific measurable criteria for assessment of the achievement. In particular, the overarching imperative for the University has been the recognition that progress toward meeting the University's mission and goals would have to be achieved within the expectation that increased support from the State would be extremely limited, and that increased revenue would have to be sought from tuition sources. In 1997, the President used data from "The National Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity" (Delaware Study) to demonstrate that if UAH mirrored the teaching productivity of similar institutions, UAH could expect to be able to accommodate at least 1,000 additional full-time equivalent (FTE) students within the resource of existing faculty. Thus, UAH's 1997-2002 plan was to increase fall enrollment by 500 FTE undergraduate students (equivalent to 7,500 semester credit hours [SCH]), and by 250 FTE graduate students (equivalent to 3,000 SCH). The goal for undergraduate enrollment was surpassed (+8,506 SCH), but the increase in graduate enrollment (+1,369 SCH) fell short. Overall, credit hour enrollment increased by 18 percent. The total gain in financial resources, based on 2004-2005 tuition rates, is more than $4 million in annually recurring funding. In 2002, the plan was continued for another five years, with new goals for similar increases. By Fall Semester 2004, the increase in undergraduate enrollment (+6,160 SCH) had already approached the new goal, but graduate enrollment remained static (+80 SCH). An important corollary objective in both plans, but without sufficient data to set specific numerical goals, was to increase the proportion of out-of-state students, who pay substantially higher tuition. These efforts have been rewarded by strong increases in out-of-state undergraduates: +77 percent for the period 1997-2002, and +24 percent for the period 2002-2004. UAH historically has maintained integrated and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that incorporate a systematic review of programs and services. These processes include a system of annual reports and reviews, in some cases five-year reviews or accreditation reviews. Each unit of the University is required to submit an annual report. These reports present relevant metrics for the unit performance. These reports are used in the overall planning process for UAH. Academic programs that do not have external accreditation are reviewed every five years. The Manual for Comprehensive Academic Program Reviews describes the process for these five-year reviews, including the use of external evaluators. Academic programs in the Colleges of Administrative Science, Engineering, and Nursing, and Music in the College of Liberal Arts, and Computer Science in the College of Science are accredited by their respective professional review bodies. To systematize integrated and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that incorporate a systematic review of programs and services, UAH has established an innovative system for documenting the assessment, achievement, and improvements in unit performance as identified by unit, program, and learning outcomes. The University document Guidance for Developing and Assessing Unit, Program, and Student Learning Outcomes, describes the role of outcomes in the planning process. Prior to development of these guidelines, evaluation results were reported in a variety of formats. This guidance document has provided a consistent method of reporting and follow-through with results of assessment. It also defines the administrative, academic, and service units of the institution that are required to prepare unit profiles. A unit profile includes basic information identifying the unit, the unit mission, unit outcomes, program outcomes, and learning outcomes with their assessment, as appropriate, and improvements based on the assessments. These profiles are now an integral part of the UAH strategic planning and assessment process and they are available on the UAH SACS website. (UAH Online Profile System- UAH OPS) In addition to the internal processes for strategic planning and assessment, UAH participates in The University of Alabama System Strategic Planning Initiatives. In 1998, The University of Alabama (UA) System, with the guidance of the Board of Trustees and under the direction of the System Chancellor Thomas Meredith, embarked on a Strategic Initiatives Planning Process. In the initial phase of this process System-wide task forces met to identify additional opportunities for collaboration among the units of the System. The task forces identified expected outcomes, enabling conditions, responsible changes, measures of success, and timelines for the accomplishment of a set of goals. These items were reported to the Board of Trustees and on November 17, 2000 the Board endorsed the recommendations from the Strategic Initiatives Planning Process. This process established a framework at the System level for strategic planning and assessment. The President and Provost report regularly to the Chancellor on the items identified in the Process. Subsequent to The University of Alabama System Strategic Planning Initiative, Chancellor Malcolm Portera developed a set of performance indicators to be used in the assessment of The UA System campuses. The performance indicators are metrics to be used in the assessment of the performance of the individual campuses. The metrics are:
These indicators have been adopted and will be used as part of the institution-wide evaluation of effectiveness. As further evidence that the University engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation that incorporates a systematic review of programs, it is noted that UAH is in compliance with the Program Viability Legislation, Alabama Act 96-557, which mandates that the Alabama Commission on Higher Education (ACHE) "enforce, monitor, and report on minimum degree productivity standards for all existing programs of instruction at public two-year and four-year institutions of higher education." Chapter 300-2-2, "Program Viability Review," of the Alabama Administrative Code addresses the implementation of Act 96-557 at the state level. This act specifies the minimum number of graduates from a viable degree program based on a five-year rolling average. These minimums, as applicable to UAH academic programs, are listed in Table 2.5.a. The legislation and implementation policy also define specific core disciplines, which are permitted waivers for the viability requirements, the process for the phase-in period, and requirements for new programs. Table 2.5.a Program Viability Minimum Number of Graduates Per Year To demonstrate to ACHE that UAH programs meet state mandates, UAH annually reports the numbers of graduates per year for all degree and certificate programs that are subject to viability measures. These Viability Reports, which are included as source documents, demonstrate the impact of the research-based evaluation process on the programs offered at UAH. All of the degree programs at UAH subject to the viability requirements are viable and exceed the minimums established by the viability legislation, with the exception of three core liberal arts and science programs. Further, these reports show how UAH has responded to this review of programs. For example, in the initial phase in of the viability requirements UAH determined that the five programs it offered in French, German, Spanish, Slavic Studies, and Foreign Language and International Trade did not meet the minimum viability standards. As a result, the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures underwent an intensive study that resulted in a complete curricular revision and a proposal to merge all language programs. As a result, in Spring Semester 2001 UAH received approval to strengthen foreign language instruction by merging all foreign language programs and offer a single BA degree in Foreign Languages. In a similar example, UAH determined that the BA programs in Music and Music Education did not meet the viability standard. These programs underwent curricular review, which led to merging the programs into a single BA program. The merger was approved by ACHE in 1998. Both Foreign Language and Music have subsequently gone through program reviews. The Foreign Language program had a University review in 2003 and Music received its reaccreditation from National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) in 2001. The evidence that UAH is "effectively accomplishing its mission" can be found in many documents. The single most comprehensive document that demonstrates this accomplishment is the Campus-Level Planning Processes: Campus Plan, Goals, Results, and Effectiveness, dated January 28, 2005. This document provides a summary of the University's performance in meeting the goals of its strategic plan. Evidence that UAH is "effectively accomplishing its mission" is also found in the Unit Profiles on the UAH Online Profile System (UAH OPS). As noted in the foregoing, the Unit Profiles contain the unit mission statement, outcomes for the unit, and results of assessment. The unit mission statement is derived from the mission of UAH and the unit outcomes are derived from the unit mission statement. Thus, the results of assessment for the unit outcomes, as well as the program outcomes and learning outcomes for academic units, provide direct evidence of the effective accomplishment of the institution's mission. Further evidence that UAH is "effectively accomplishing its mission" is found in reports to the Chancellor and ACHE, including the Viability Reports, annual reports of UAH units, UAH Fact Books, and accreditation processes. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
