Assessment Working Group

Meetings to date: Sept. 23

Next meeting: October 23, 9:80 in Endris 597

Meeting of September 23, 2003

Present: Aycock, Ghorbanpoor, Kritek, Whittingham; guest: Ruth Williams

Notes on discussion:

• Campus does an assessment of its planning. How is this effort pushed down to the units?
• Planning statement defines expected outcomes.
• Black and Gold Commission is an outcome of data showing reduced student satisfaction.
• Planning documents stopped about 5 years ago.
• Campus has used PAR, department planning profiles, report of the Graduate School Research Committee, Program reviews, investment plan, assessments of deans and other administrators, etc. The question is what happens because of these reports. What are the weak spots? What did people do with planning documents?
• What has been the role of shared governance in budgeting and planning: e.g., Academic Planning and Budget Committees at the campus and school/college levels.
• Non-academic units also used to do planning documents.
• There has been a mid-term report: Investment Plan after three years. What has happened to investment plan money? Some new money has gone to infrastructure, technology, etc.
• How are 150 monies used?
• It might be helpful to trace funding to all units.
• Does campus collect accreditation reports or unit strategic plans?
• Have there been any assessments of student affairs?
• What is role of office of resource analysis?
  

Meeting of October 23, 2003

Present: Aycock, Maas, Kritek, Whittingham

Alan commented on the UW System accountability report.

• Data provide a benchmark and indicate what UWS wants to see. Probably standard measures expected by most universities.
• Sometimes, however, data are presented to put the institution in a good light; where do we internally get "straight" data?
• Is there an internal report that is like the system report? The process should be shared as appropriate.
• There are no data about gender. Why?
• We have to account to system-how is this followed up on campus? Does it just get filed? Does it drive other practices on campus? (Check with Ruth.)

Bruce prepared a report addressing item 2cii. The organization maintains effective systems for collecting, analyzing, and using organizational information. Document will be on Criterion 2 website.

Bill reported on the use of US News ranking. Is it worth using these rankings since they are usually denounced? There is a question about comparables. Maybe we should identify the places we want to compare ourselves to-places with equal resources.

Investment Plan midpoint progress report is on the web. Goals are classified into four categories: satisfactory progress, adequate progress, unsatisfactory progress, and "premature to assess."

Linda reported on program reviews. The schedule of GFC and APCC reviews is on the web. The audit and review procedures document from the APCC was shred. There are feedback loops where programs respond to specific questions. There is a summary evaluation of faculty, including publications, etc. The evaluation processes are used for self-assessment by programs. Examples of these reviews can be presented.

Item 2cv: Adequate support for assessment and evaluation isn't there. A lot is decentralized; there are issues of comparability; a position is probably needed for coordination.