INSTITUTIONAL SELF-STUDY COMPREHENSIVE
Prepared for the Commission on Higher Education Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools
KEAN UNIVERSITY Union, New Jersey
March 2001 COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP FOR THE SELF-STUDY
Steering Committee Members Dr. Beverley T. Amick Self-Study Director and Steering Committee Chair Director, Center for Professional Development Professor, Instruction, Curriculum and Admin. Dr. Jose Adames Dean, School of Liberal Arts Professor, English Dr. Thomas Banit Associate Professor, Instruction, Curriculum, and Administration Dr. Margot Banks Professor, English Dr. Minnie Campbell Professor, Nursing Professor Ellen Comerford Associate Professor, Accounting Mr. Edgar Evans Budget Analyst, Budget Office Mr. John Marcinski Director, Learning Assistance Program Dr. Charles Murphy Professor, Geology and Meteorology Mr. George Sisko Associate Dean of Academic Affairs Assistant Professor, Instruction, Curriculum, and Administration
Self-Study Teams Planning Processes: Mission, Governance Financial Affairs, Goals, & Objectives Equipment, & Facilities Charles Murphy, chair Jose Adames, co-chair Ellen Comerford, co-chair Janet Allen Thomas Banit, co-chair Edgar Evans, co-chair Nancy Brilliant Brian Carlsen Ray Bandlow Richard Buncamper Robert Cirasa James Castiglione Sylvio Codella Rebecca Dawkins William DeGarcia Brian Des Rochers Victor Esquilen Glenn Hedden Ethel Eaddy Anne-Marie Feury Sherrell Holderman Jon Erickson Francine Glazer Henry Kaplowitz Janice Jackson Roye-Ann Hargrove Donna Meade Dennis Klein Joan Kastner Martha Mobley Alonso Losada Marjorie Kelly Betsy Rodriguez-Bachiller Irwin Nesoff Stephen Kubow Cecelia Rover Josh Palgi MaryLou Mayo Bruce Skoorka Anthony Scelba Anne Onufer George Thorn Karen Stern Dolores Shiposh Catherine Wehrer Heather Stokes-Huby Bert Wailoo Mary Zagorski Ernest Wiggins Human Resources Educational Programs Students Jose Adames, co-chair Margot Banks, chair John Marcinski, chair Thomas Banit, co-chair Polly Ashelman Suzanne Bousquet Deborah Allen Christin Buttner Eufronio Carreno Patricia Bridges Joseph Darden Faruque Chowdhury Larry Chang Gail Deustsch Beverly Desch Jesus Diaz Catherine Dorsey-Gaines Sharon Foushee Rita Dunbar Elsa Gomez Daniel Gover Anne-Marie Faury Patricia Hannish Jason Gregurovic Ray Ford Alice Kelly Patricia Gruytch James Jandrowitz Bryan Lees Sharon Haussman Scott Kinnie Joseph Marinello Lidija Kampa Carlon Krantz Eleanor McKnight Christopher Lynch Cyril Nwako Peter Ndoma-Ogar Vincent Merlo Angela Porta Frank Osborne Josephine Norwood Bonnie Potter Dula Pacquiao Carlos Rivera Joy Prescott Tanya Poteat Maria del Carmen David Treadwell Rafael Risemberg Rodriguez-Solis Ina White Judith Rosenthal Sandra Smith Carole Shaffer-Koros Heather Sullivan-Catlin Barbara Tomlinson Stuart Topper
Library and Learning Resources Editor Minnie Campbell, chair David Treadwell Beverley Baker Jose Baldassini Secretary Sharon Boyd-Jackson James Conyers Diane Bryan Ciphor Deavoars Walter Jablonski Caroline Jolly Hui Min Kuo Morgan Laury Rosa Lemel Angela Lopez Barbara Manger Jean Mattson Frank Morejon Bridget White Shing Yoh CONTENTS
Executive Summary 1 Preface 7 Chapter 1: Planning Processes: Mission Goals and Objectives Introduction 9 1991 Mission Statement 10 Perceptions of the Mission and Core Values 10 Implementation and Assessment of the 1991 Mission 12 Development of a New Mission Statement 13 2000 Kean University Mission Statement 14 Planning Processes at Kean University 14 Curriculum Procedures 16 Facilities Master Plan Development and Implementation 16 Perceptions of Planning 18 Assessment 19 Chapter 2: Governance Introduction 23 The State System of Higher Education 23 Kean University Board of Trustees 24 Responses to Survey 25 Senior Administrative Officers 30 Faculty Senate 36 Kean Federation of Teachers 39 Adjunct Faculty 40 Operations, Maintenance, Service, Crafts, Inspection, and Security Employees 40 Primary Level Supervisors 41 Higher Level Supervisors 41 Administrative and Clerical Services 41 Chapter 3: Financial Resources and Allocations Introduction 43 Summary of Findings 43 Financial Resources and Allocation 44 Budget and Strategic Planning Process 45 Accounting and Auditing Processes 48 Financial Trends and Concerns 49 Chapter 4: Human Resources Introduction 51 Faculty 52 Profile 52 Workload 53 Teaching 53 Advisement 54 Community Service 54 Recruitment 55 Reappointment, Tenure, Promotion 55 Five-Year Review of Tenured Faculty 56 Scholarly and Professional Development 56 Faculty Research and Presentation 56 Center for Professional Development 57 Grants and Foundation Office 57 Librarians 61 Profile 61 Evaluation and Promotion 61 Professional Development 62 Conclusions 62 Adjunct Faculty 64 Profile 64 Evaluation and Reclassification 65 Training and Development 65 Survey Response 65 Professional Staff 67 Profile 67 Training 68 Evaluation 68 Survey Responses 69 Clerical Staff 70 Profile 70 Evaluation 71 Training and Development 72 Survey Results 72 Department of Public Safety and Police 74 Profile 74 Evaluation 75 Training and Development 76 Survey Results 76 Maintenance and Facilities Staff 78 Profile 78 Training 78 Evaluation 79 Survey Responses 79 Relationship to University Mission and Goals 80 Summary 81 Chapter 5: Educational Programs Introduction 83 Advisement 85 Undergraduate Programs 86 Developmental Studies Program 87 General Education 89 General Education Learning Assistant Program (GELAP) 91 Major Courses of Study 92 Achievement of Major Program Goals 93 Achievement of Institutional Goals 93 Other Programs in Fulfillment of University Mission 94 Honors Program 97 Exceptional Educational Opportunities Program 99 English as a Second Language Program 101 Graduate Programs 103 Continuing Education 105 Outcomes Assessment 106 Undergraduate 107 Graduate 107 Additional Findings 109 Curriculum Development 109 Articulation Agreements 110 Academic Policy 110 Student Satisfaction 110 Diversity 111 Summary and Recommendation 114 Chapter 6: Students Introduction 115 Student Profile 116 Admissions 116 Undergraduate 116 Recruitment Process 117 Survey Results 118 Focus Group Results 118 Undergraduate Admissions Criteria and Programs 119 Post-Admission Services 121 Developmental Studies 121 Center for New Students 122 Passport Program 123 Spanish Speaking Program 123 Retention and Assessment 124 Graduate Admissions 125 Survey Results 126 Focus Group Results 126 Student Support Services 127 Academic Advisement 127 Registration 129 Financial Aid 131 Student Accounting 132 Student Life 133 Services 134 Health Services 134 Department of Public Safety and Police 135 Residence Life and Housing Office 135 Activities 136 Student Organization 137 Council for Part-Time Students 137 Graduate Student Government Association 137 Career Service Center 137 Child Care Center 138 Other Activities and Events 138 Athletics 139 University Center 140 Academic Support Services 142 Learning Assistance Program 142 EEO Learning Center 142 Departmental-Based Programs 143 Developmental Studies Program 143 Relationship of Student Services to University Mission and Goals 145 Outcomes Assessment 145 Summary 148 Chapter 7: Published Materials and University Relations Introduction 151 Catalogues 151 Undergraduate 151 Graduate 152 University Relations Office 152 University Publications 152 Kean University Web Site 153 Relationship to University Mission and Goals 154 Summary 154 Chapter 8: Library and Learning Resources Introduction 155 Nancy Thompson Library and East Campus Library 156 Space and Holdings 156 Tracking and Recall 157 Library Hours of Operation 158 Staffing 158 Services 158 Budget 158 Usage 159 Faculty Participation 159 Library Instruction 160 Library Self-Assessment 160 East Campus Library (Curriculum Materials Center) 160 Instructional Resource Center (IRC) 163 Services 163 Location and Hours of Operation 163 Student Computer Workstations 163 Carrel and Preview Area 164 Television Studio 164 Non-Print Production Laboratories 165 Classroom Support 165 Personnel 166 Equipment 166 Faculty and Student Usage 167 Technology Initiative at Kean University 169 Background 169 Major Area of the Technology Initiative 170 Network Infrastructure 170 Replacement of Minicomputers 170 New Student Computer Laboratories 179 Faculty Equipment 171 Faculty and Staff Training 171 The Nancy Thompson Library 172 Technology in Administration 172 Summary 174
Chapter 9: Physical Plant, Equipment and Materials Introduction 175 Facilities Management 175 Facilities Master Plan 175 Preventive Maintenance 176 Deferred Maintenance 177 Energy Management 178 Safety and Security 179 Strategic Plan 179 Physical Space 180 Space Utilization and Analysis 180 Equipment 182 Classroom Equipment 182 Facilities Equipment 182 Athletics and Recreational Equipment 182 Responding to Changing Technology 182 Completed Capital Projects 183 Future Capital Projects 184 Planning Process, Budgeting, and Resource Allocation 184 Relationship to University Mission and Goals 185 Outcomes Assessment 185 Summary and Recommendations 185 Chapter 10: Conclusion Mission, Goals, and Objectives 187 Governance 187 Financial Resources and Allocations 187 Human Resources 188 Educational Programs 188 Students 188 Published Materials and University Relations 188 Library and Learning Resources 188 Physical Plant, Equipment, and Materials 189 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Middle States Steering Committee and chair were appointed by President Ronald Applbaum, in consultation with Provost Livingston Alexander, the president’s cabinet, the Council of Deans, and the chair of the Faculty Senate. The Steering Committee cooperated with the provost in recommending to the president a comprehensive self-study design and rosters of members who would serve on the self-study teams. Seven self-study teams were formed, broadly representative of faculty, staff, and students. The self-study teams completed their work in spring 2000. The information gathered by the self-study teams provides the basis for the chapters of the institutional report to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Planning Processes A 1999 survey of the members of the campus community found there is widespread agreement regarding the importance of the major components of the 1991 mission statement. In fall 1998, a committee was convened to consider developing a new mission statement, since significant changes had taken place at the institution. The new mission statement was presented to the Faculty Senate in April 2000 and was approved by the Board of Trustees at its May l5, 2000, meeting. Strategic planning processes exist at the university and the goals are reflective of the mission of the university. The relationship between the University Planning Council, strategic planning, facilities planning, and budgetary planning is not understood by the majority of the faculty and staff. It is recommended that the feedback mechanism for the planning process be improved so that university personnel at all levels are kept better informed. Governance The Higher Education Restructuring Act of 1994 provided Kean University with greater autonomy from state oversight and gave the school’s Board of Trustees ultimate responsibility for the governance of the institution. It was found that the Board of Trustees’ accomplishments in fund-raising are only modest and it is recommended that the Board commit itself to a greater effort to raise large endowments for the university. More women and minorities need to be identified as prospective trustees and recommended to serve on the board. The self-study found, in general, a functioning governance structure. The senior administrative officers work as a team and work effectively with the Faculty Senate, Kean Federation of Teachers and student government organizations.
Financial Resources and Allocations The university’s financial resources appear to be adequate to ensure the continuity of programs and services. During the 1999-2000 academic year the institution received an increase of $1.6 million to its base appropriation. However, questions remain about continued funding for capital improvements. It is recommended that the institution improve communication so that the Kean community better understands the relationship between the strategic planning process and the budgeting process. Human Resources Diversity is a common thread throughout the human resources categories. The professional staff, clerical staff, and campus police have become increasingly more reflective of the student body in terms of gender, ethnicity, and race. The composition of the faculty has also followed this trend, but to a lesser degree. The maintenance staff remains largely male African Americans and Hispanics, with Caucasians predominating in the leadership positions. The number of faculty holding doctorates or terminal degrees has increased, and there is a widespread perception that recently hired faculty are of a high caliber. Quality teaching and scholarship are recognized through awards and released time. The university relies on a large number of adjunct faculty to provide instruction. While the adjunct faculty are well prepared to teach and enjoy their work, many feel isolated. Librarians, professional staff, campus police, clerical staff, and maintenance staff feel well prepared for their duties. Yet, these groups strongly believe that personnel staffing is inadequate. It is recommended that the number of full-time faculty and librarians be increased. Educational Programs Kean’s mission stresses access by a pluralistic population to challenging academic programs, with appropriate support to enable students to achieve career objectives and advanced academic endeavors. The quality and breadth of studies at Kean reflect the emphasis on acquisition of skills, respect for diversity, and academic excellence. The General Education program, which provides the academic foundation for all Kean students, is administered by the Office of the Provost/Vice President of Academic Affairs. In addition, Kean’s five schools offer undergraduate and graduate degree programs covering a wide range of disciplines and career options. Students can gain expertise and specialization through major, minor, and collateral programs, and through classroom and distance learning. At the same time, practical professional experience can be gained through service-learning internships and externships. Kean has a long history in outcomes assessment in higher education. A university-wide schedule of program review through 1998 was in place. Changes in the administration of Academic Affairs created a transition period during which assessment processes were put on hold. In addition, such initiatives as integrating technology into the curriculum have taken the emphasis from assessment for the past two years. In spring semester 2000, the revised program review guidelines were approved for implementation beginning with the 2000-2001 academic years. The stated objective is to foster excellence in education by providing an opportunity for programs and academic service units to identify areas of strength and address areas that need improvements. The program review is an ongoing process based on student learning outcomes and the document sets forth a five-year cycle of program review. The new General Education Learning Assistance Program, which is being piloted in fall 2000, has an outcomes assessment component that is being developed and implemented with assistance from an institutional assessment coordinator. Although the strategic planning process calls for measurable outcomes, and the program review process focuses on outcomes assessment, the institution needs a more fully developed outcomes assessment plan. Students Essential student services and activities are distributed among three major administrative divisions of the university: Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, and Administration and Finance. Students perceive the university as an undifferentiated whole. This perception is fundamentally correct, since Kean’s mission statement firmly establishes the primacy of these educational and support services. Enrollment objectives have generally been met through the university’s recruitment and admission activities. The demographic characteristics of Kean’s student population are reflective of the region and meet most of the objectives articulated in the mission statement. The broad array of support services at Kean is dispersed across several administrative units and there is little coordination among the services. The restructuring and centralization of functions such as academic advisement, financial aid, and registration, began during the current (1999-2000) academic year. A "one-stop" center for these services will open in fall 2000. The retention rate of native freshmen to graduation has not fully met university expectations. Redesigned programs, including GELAP, and the establishment of an Office of Retention Services are recent initiatives focused on the issue of student retention. Student life services and the programming of events and activities reflect institutional diversity. There are many academic support programs and services available to Kean students. The programs offer a wide variety of assistance and extend across much of the curriculum. These services are only partially centralized, resulting in some duplication of services and limiting the efficient deployment of resources. Planned university-wide restructuring includes the consolidation and integration of services in this area. Outcomes assessment must be fully institutionalized in the Academic Support Services areas and in the Student Life areas. Published Materials and University Relations Kean’s published materials accurately inform the external and internal communities about the university’s mission, programs, policies and services. Publications are attractive in design and representative of the institution. The Kean Web site, while providing a broad spectrum of institutional information, does contain some outdated information. Personnel need to be assigned to monitor the Web site and continually update the information presented. Library and Learning Resources Kean’s library and learning resources are in a period of transition. The Nancy Thompson Library and the Instructional Resource Center have benefited from the technological improvements the campus has undergone in recent months. The campus-wide technology initiatives are moving the university into a new age of instruction, communication, and information management. The Instructional Resource Center in general is providing the university community with satisfactory services. The Nancy Thompson Library is in need of attention. It is not receiving the financial support needed to be the kind of study and research center that is vital to the mission of the university. Improvements have been made, such as the renovation of the physical structure and the introduction of new technology, but the budget, staffing, and holdings continue to be problematic. Physical Plant, Equipment, and Materials Kean’s academic programs and associated support services are housed in 27 different campus buildings, 25 of which are on the main campus and two of which are on the East Campus. These 27 buildings comprise 991,537 gross square feet and 672,507 assignable square feet of space. Seventy-nine percent of the University’s 102 departmental programs are currently short of space. Over the past decade Kean has increased its physical space and improved both its infrastructure and physical appearance with a series of capital projects. In March 2000, the capital projects in the Facilities Master Plan were prioritized into four levels, but funding is available only for the Level I projects. The existing Deferred Maintenance Plan is adequate to meet the university’s needs, but not enough funds are available to address all the needs of the physical plant. Preventive maintenance needs to be given a higher priority at the institution. Additional funding and staff should be provided.
PREFACE
Kean University continues to reflect the vitality of the region in which it is located, responding innovatively to the needs of the state and the region. The university has played a significant role in the history of higher education in New Jersey. It was in 1855 that the institution opened its doors in Newark as the state’s first normal school, providing preparation for Newark teachers and administrators. In 1958, the institution moved from Newark to Union Township and established a new campus on land purchased from the Kean family estate. Sixteen years later, the school’s name was changed from Newark State College to Kean College of New Jersey. On September 26, 1997, the New Jersey Commission on Higher Education granted "university" status to the college and it was renamed Kean University. Over the past 146 years, Kean has grown from an institution with 3 faculty, 85 students, and 2 academic programs to become New Jersey’s third-largest university, with more than 800 full-time and adjunct faculty, more than 12,000 students, and 70 undergraduate and graduate programs. Undergraduate major programs cover a wide range of disciplines in the liberal arts, natural and social sciences, health professions, teacher education, business, and applied disciplines, all organized within four schools. The Nathan Weiss School of Graduate Studies administers the graduate programs, which range from education to public administration to nursing. The faculty is recognized for both its teaching excellence and its involvement in scholarship and service. Kean continues to respond to the major demographic and social changes in this region of New Jersey. Exceptional academic support programs have been developed to meet the requirements of an increasingly multicultural undergraduate population, one of the most diversified in the state. As an interactive metropolitan institution, Kean is also positioning itself to meet the challenging educational and scholarly needs of New Jersey students and citizens. It remains committed to a mission that provides access, opportunity, and affordability. Kean is proud of its history, its tradition of service to the community, and its commitment to scholarship, excellence, and innovation by its faculty and professional staff. In the five years since Dr. Ronald Applbaum assumed the presidency, the physical plant has undergone renovation and expansion. A new academic building has been completed, and additions have been made to the Nancy Thompson Library, University Center, Bruce Hall, Technology Building, and Wilkins Theater. There is also a new football stadium, and a campus beautification and site improvement project has been completed. All of this has resulted in an attractive and hospitable campus environment. Construction of another new academic building is being considered, as are plans to renovate D’Angola Gym. In addition, the construction of a campus health and fitness center is under discussion. Academic technology has been a major focus of the institution since 1997. Computer laboratories have been upgraded and expanded. Students are supportive of the initiative, with Student Organization funding an open laboratory in the University Center. More than 10 "smart" classrooms are located on the campus. All faculty members have Pentium-class computers in their offices, and computer training is provided on a regular basis for faculty, administrators, and professional and clerical staff. Web-site registration is planned for summer 2001. Kean is currently engaged in revising its general education and learning assistance programs. Developmental studies will be integrated with the general education foundations courses. In addition, general education will be linked to the academic majors. A plan for the reorganization of the Division of Academic Affairs is being developed by a committee that is representative of the campus community. The purpose of the reorganization is to make the division more responsive to programmatic and student needs. It is anticipated that the reorganization plan will be presented to the Board of Trustees in December 2000. Kean’s vitality is reflected in both its faculty and students. Students have a positive view of the university, citing the faculty’s care and concern for them as a major factor in their high level of satisfaction. Classes are small, and faculty know their students. Contributions made by Kean students and alumni are profound. Kean is the major producer of teachers in New Jersey. Kean alumni are leaders not only in education but also in business, the arts and sciences, and in health professions. Faculty members like teaching at the school and enjoy the diversity of the student body and the staff. They possess strong professional and academic credentials. In addition, faculty members are dedicated to serving the university and the surrounding community while continuing their scholarly activities. The Kean community is optimistic about the future of the university.
CHAPTER 1 Planning Processes: Mission, Goals, and Objectives
Introduction The Planning Processes: Mission, Goals, and Objectives self-study team followed these accreditation standards:
The purpose of this self-study is to examine Kean University’s mission and the institution’s planning processes. The 1991 Mission Statement is described and then an examination is made of: (1) how the university community perceives the mission statement, (2) how the statement is translated into action, and (3) how effective the statement has been during the decade of the 1990s. The content and development process for the 2000 Mission Statement is also presented. In addition, this portion of the self-study considers the structure and effectiveness of the university’s planning processes and how these planning processes reflect and implement the institution’s mission.
1991 Mission Statement Kean University’s 1991 Mission Statement was developed in the 1989-90 academic year and was formally adopted in January 1991. The statement, the first ever of its kind at Kean, evolved from an earlier document titled "Statement on Human Relations Commitment at Kean College," which was composed during a 1987 faculty retreat and subsequently published in the 1990-92 catalogue. The 1991 statement guided the university through most of the decade of the 1990s and called for the university to:
Perceptions of the Mission and Core Values A survey conducted among faculty, senior administrators, professional staff, clerical staff, and maintenance staff in preparation for this self-study reveals the respondents’ impression of the mission and how they believe it guides the institution. The respondents were asked to rank five components of the mission in order of importance. Table 1 contains the results of this ranking. Most of the groups rated "To provide quality education to prepare students for their social and professional lives" as the most important component (faculty, 55%; senior administrators, 55%; professional staff, 66%; clerical staff, 41%; and maintenance staff, 43%) "To provide access to higher education for students with a potential for success" was rated as the second most important (faculty, 38%; senior administrators, 36%; professional staff, 41%; clerical staff, 46%; and maintenance staff, 29%). Rated lowest among the five components were "To interact with the surrounding community and region in cultural and collaborative efforts" and "To provide learning support for students not fully prepared for college-level work." When senior administrators were asked if the mission statement provides overall guidance for the university, 63% agreed and 27% were neutral. When asked if the Table 1 Survey Responses to Importance of Mission Components (Most Important)
NOTE: Percentages in the above table may not add up to 100% for each group because respondents may have given two or more components the same ranking A. To provide access to higher education for students with a potential for success B. To provide learning support for students not fully prepared for college-level work C. To offer programs of study that meet the needs of the region and the state D. To provide quality education to prepare our students for their social and work lives E. To interact with the surrounding community and region in cultural and collaborative endeavors
mission is consistent with the needs of our student population, 71% agreed and 18% disagreed. In none of the groups surveyed were there any substantial differences in the rating of the importance of the components of the mission. A line from its concluding paragraph summarizes the focus and spirit of the 1991 Mission Statement: "Kean University seeks to combine excellence and equity." From this unifying principle, five core values associated with the mission can be derived: (1) diversity, (2) equality of access and opportunity, (3) pursuit of academic excellence, (4) support of student learning and intellectual growth, and (5) community connections and partnerships. These core values support and interact with one another and have had a substantial influence on Kean’s growth and development over the past decade. Kean’s success as an academic institution appears to be due in part to a strong consistency in the perception that members of the campus community have of the school's mission. In the self-study survey, participants were asked to rank these core values in terms of their importance. Table 2 summarizes those responses. Pursuit of academic excellence, support of student learning and intellectual growth, and equality of access and opportunity were rated one, two, and three, respectively, by each of the groups. The lowest ratings were given to diversity and community connections and partnerships, with diversity in particular ranked first by only 6% of faculty and 9% of senior administrators.
Table 2 Survey Response to Importance of Core Values (Most Important)
NOTE: Percentages in the above table may not add up to 100% for each group because respondents may have given two or more components the same ranking A. Diversity B. Equality of Access and Opportunity C. Pursuit of Academic Excellence D. Support of Student Learning and Intellectual Growth E. Commuity Connections and Partnerships
Implementation and Assessment of the 1991 Mission The implementation of the mission statement should be evident in the university’s admission policies, programs, and support services. Implementation of the mission statement should also be intimately linked with planning processes. When asked if the long-range plans of the institution were guided by the mission statement, 47% of faculty, 91% of senior administrators, and 33% of professional staff agreed. By comparison, 21% of faculty, 9% of senior administrators, and 14% of professional staff disagreed. Senior administrators were asked additional questions. These administrators almost universally agreed that senior administrators implement the mission, goals, and objectives of the institution, and that they apply the resources to accomplish these aims. Asked if the mission statement provided overall guidance for the institution, 45% of the senior administrators agreed and 27% were neutral. Moreover, asked if the mission and goals can be easily translated into action, 63% agreed and 27% were neutral. The views of the professional staff differ, however. In response to the question of whether existing structures facilitate the implementation of the mission, only 19% agreed, 37% were neutral, and 31% disagreed. Moreover, on the question of whether the mission and goals are easily translated into action, 19% agreed, 32% were neutral, and 30% disagreed. Development of a New Mission Statement In fall 1998, the provost convened a committee to consider developing a new mission statement for the university. The existing mission statement had been in force for seven years, but over that period many significant changes had taken place at the institution. In 1996, for example, Dr. Ronald Applbaum became Kean’s president, bringing new leadership directions, including the concept of Kean as an interactive metropolitan university that uses advanced technology in support of its mission. President Applbaum delineated these leadership directions in his inaugural address and in subsequent state of the university addresses. Also in 1996, Kean was granted university status by the state Commission on Higher Education. These events–Applbaum’s becoming president and Kean’s being granted university status–had a significant effect on the institution and its members. What is more, the region in which Kean is located had undergone a significant change in demographics and career opportunities for Kean graduates. Such factors indicated the importance of revising the existing mission statement. The ad hoc committee convened by the provost was composed of a cross-section of the university community, including faculty, administrators, and staff. The committee’s charge was to develop a mission statement that would address the changing nature of the university and its role as an institution of higher learning. The charge also called for the committee to make the statement more concise than the existing one so that it would be appropriate for distribution in such new media as the Internet. The committee spent the better part of a year developing a draft statement. The draft was reported to the Faculty Senate in early fall 1999 and generated considerable response from the campus community. The brevity of the proposed statement was interpreted by many as an abandonment of the university’s long-standing values. The Faculty Senate, in turn, held several hearings soliciting both verbal and written responses from the campus community. These responses, almost 30 in number, were reviewed and considered by the ad hoc committee. The committee developed a revised draft that was longer and contained more explicit language to express the university’s values. This version was presented to the Faculty Senate in April 2000 and was subsequently approved by the Board of Trustees at its May 15, 2000, meeting. 2000 Kean University Mission Statement The essential components of the new Mission Statement call for the university to:
Planning Processes at Kean University Planning processes at Kean University have changed significantly since the last Middle-States Accreditation Report. In the late 1980s Kean established a College Planning Committee with representation from faculty, staff, students, and administrators. In 1987, the committee prepared a three-year strategic plan that was recommended to the president and Faculty Senate. Sometime after this, the committee became inactive and ultimately ceased to function. With the appointment of President Applbaum in 1996, however, the planning process was revitalized. Soon after Applbaum’s arrival, he and the Faculty Senate directed the University Planning Council to prepare a five-year strategic plan. The framework for this plan was the master plan approved by the state Commission on Higher Education in November 1996. In addition, the Interim Planning Council and the Periodic Review Report for Middle States identified many of the issues subsequently analyzed in the new strategic plan. The plan also incorporates the vision of the university described in President Applbaum’s first university address in September 1996. The 1997 Five-Year Strategic Plan provides 11 directions or themes that are grouped under four categories: (1) organizational, (2) resources, (3) academic, and (4) interactive. The initial draft plan included the following directions:
Organizational
Resources
Academic
Interactive
The Faculty Senate and the president adopted the Strategic Plan in May 1997. The plan includes a three-phase planning process for the five-year period. The first phrase began in May 1997 and focused solely on the interactive strategic direction. The next phase was completed in 1999 and was expanded to include all strategic directions. The funded projects include a variety of activities from all four schools of the university. The third phrase of the strategic initiative process is currently under way. Each department has prepared and submitted proposals to its respective school committee for review. The school committees review and prioritize the proposals and forward them to the provost or vice presidents for divisional review and prioritization. The provost and vice presidents report the outcomes of the strategic planning process of the University Planning Council. The projects funded under the Strategic Plan tend to support the overall mission of the university, but do not support the university’s core functions. Core functions continue to be funded through traditional budgetary processes and are not reviewed in the planning process. Curriculum Procedures Kean has established a process that guides the development and structure of all academic offerings. This process involves a concept-approval track for all new majors before they are submitted for formal approval. The concept-approval process, which is the university’s primary curricular planning process, is department based. All new programs are initially developed at the department level and are then forwarded up the organizational ladder in successive steps. The concept-approval process begins at the departmental level, with subsequent consideration and approval by the University Curriculum Committee. The Faculty Senate, the university president, the Board of Trustees, the Council of College Presidents, and the state Commission on Higher Education each then successively review the document. The completion of the process requires that the department, the University Curriculum Committee, and the Faculty Senate approve a Final Program Document. This process insures that all interested parties have an opportunity to comment on the proposed major. Among the concerns that can be voiced in the process is this process is the role of the new major in fulfilling the mission of Kean University. Over the past few years, the University Curriculum Committee and the Faculty Senate have approved a number of new majors and degree options. Among the new majors are industrial design, social work, biotechnology, and marketing. New options and joint degree programs include a joint nursing and public administration degree program and a physics minor. The approval of these new offerings appears to be consistent with the university’s mission and the Strategic Plan. However, at no point in the process does a proposed course, option, or major get reviewed for conformance with the university’s planning documents or planning processes separate from curriculum procedures. Facilities Master Plan Development and Implementation Kean University adopted a campus facilities plan in 1991. That plan included upgrading the campus infrastructure (including a co-generation plant), remodeling Bruce Hall, and constructing an addition to the University Center and a new academic building. By 1999 the major recommendations of the plan had been completed or were under way, and a new plan was proposed. In spring 1999, the Board of Trustees adopted a new facilities master plan as the guide for future capital improvements to the campus. This master plan outlines the actions required to ensure that future physical development suits the needs of students, faculty, and staff. The plan concludes, among other things, that Kean suffers a significant shortage of office, library, and classroom space. Twenty-four of the 29 academic departments have a shortage of space for faculty offices and library holdings, and a severe shortage of classroom and laboratory space at peak hours. In the 1999-2000 academic year, this space crunch translated into an overall shortage of about 345,000 square feet of space. This space shortage is expected to increase by another 60,000 square feet over the next 10 years. The master plan does not suggest altering existing university policies favoring small class sizes, and it recognizes a modest expansion over the next decade. The plan also includes campus-related landscaping and environmental concerns, but does not consider the community in which the university is located. The core of the master plan is a capital facilities development plan. Two groups or categories of capital projects are designated. The first group consists of $23.5 million worth of facilities and site improvements that are currently under way or have been recently completed. Among this group are the new academic building, the Bruce Hall renovations, and the steam-line and generator replacements. The second group consists of $75.6 million worth of roof renovations or replacements, utility and fire upgrades, and site-landscaping improvements. The master plan attaches no precise priority to the 21 site-specific projects involving either new construction or renovation, but it does divide the projects into four categories or clusters. Development within the clusters seems to follow some logic. The plan also cautions that changes in funding sources, institutional priorities, or aesthetic and symbolic concerns may call for alterations in the design. The four categories or clusters into which the plan is divided are:
As noted, the master plan does not include a five- or 10-year capital improvement plan, detailed plans for new or renovated buildings, a landscape improvement plan or detailed architectural environmental standards. What is more, it is not clear from the plan how the administration will approach the development of more detailed plans. The first step after the development and approval of the master plan has been the development of a planning process and procedure that would be followed by the administration. This process will include the University Planning Council. The facilities planning process should, thus, fully incorporate the directions outlined in the Strategic Plan, along with those included in the university’s new mission statement. But how these planning processes will be reviewed for consistency is not explicitly stated as policy. Perceptions of Planning The responses to survey questions on planning are given in Table 3. Among faculty respondents, less than one-third (27%) felt that major decisions are guided by the university’s planning process and slightly less than half (47%) felt that the university’s long-range plans are consistent with its central mission and goals. In addition, only 47% reported participating in the current planning process.
Table 3 Survey Responses to University Planning
Among professional staff respondents, about one-fifth (19%) felt that the existing structures at the university facilitate the implementation of the mission and goals and that they can easily be translated into action. Only one-third (33%) felt that the university makes an effort to have its long-range goals consistent with the mission, and just 16% believed that the major decisions are guided by the planning process. Only 10% indicated confidence in the current planning process. Among the clerical staff, only 35% of the respondents said they have a sense of the overall plan for the university. Assessment The strategic planning process serves as a catalyst for implementation of the institutions’ goals and objectives. From the departmental/program level on up, goals and objectives for each unit are developed. Currently, the only mechanism to assess the goals and objectives of the institution is through the planning process itself. An update on the progress of strategic planning initiatives is required as part of this process. This approach focuses on specific planning initiatives rather than the overall efficacy of the planning process itself or the facility with which the process achieves the institution’s overall mission. Academic programs historically have been assessed through the program review process. This process was active from 1994 to 1996, but was subsequently suspended. The president recently reinstated the process, with a scheduled starting date of summer 2000. The original program review process was designed to rate programs for increased, level or decreased support. How program review and its criteria relate to planning and the university’s mission remains to be clarified. An adequate assessment mechanism should provide feedback to both the groups involved in the planning process and those that are affected by it. The faculty and staff survey responses reveal a general lack of awareness of the planning mechanism and lack of support for the process. This suggests that a feedback component is lacking. The respondents generally regarded the direction of the information flow in the planning process as one way–from the bottom up. Information about which initiatives are funded is particularly not readily available. Moreover, when strategic plans are prioritized, no information returns to departments and programs informing them of the reasons behind the particular prioritization. Evidence
Strengths
Weaknesses
Recommendations
CHAPTER 2 Governance
Introduction The Governance self-study team addressed the following standards for accreditation:
The purpose of the self-study is to examine Kean University’s organizational, administrative, and governance processes. The role played in governance by the state higher education system, Kean’s governing board, senior administrative officers, the Faculty Senate, and the Kean Federation of Teachers and other local unions is described and reviewed. The State System of Higher Education The New Jersey Commission on Higher Education was created in 1994 by the Higher Education Restructuring Act. The commission provides coordination, planning, policy, development, and advocacy for the state’s higher education system in collaboration with the New Jersey Presidents’ Council. The higher education system comprises both public and independent institutions. The public institutions are: Rutgers University, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey Institute of Technology, five state universities, four state colleges, and 19 community colleges. There are 25 independent institutions in the state. The 1994 restructuring act gave public institutions greater autonomy, for the avowed purpose of stimulating creativity and innovation and allowing greater decision-making and accountability at the institutional level. Institutions would thus be better able to fulfill their respective missions and serve statewide goals. The Commission on Higher Education includes a 15-member advisory panel composed of representatives of higher education administration, the K-12 community, the state Legislature, the private sector, and organizations concerned with higher education in New Jersey. The 1994 act also created a tripartite structuring consisting of the Commission on Higher Education, the Presidents’ Council, and the individual university and college trustee boards. The commission provides for statewide coordination, research, advocacy, planning, and policy development, with advice from the Presidents’ Council. It recommends higher education initiatives and incentive programs to the governor and Legislature. It has authority for licensure, university status, institutional programmatic missions, and new degree programs. The Presidents’ Council is responsible for reviewing new programs, forming regional and cooperative programs among institutions, and making recommendations to the governor and Legislature on higher education policy issues. The trustee boards are ultimately responsible for the governance of their institutions. They have responsibility for institutional policy and planning, student tuition and fees, admissions, degree requirements, investment of institutional funds, legal affairs, and budget requests for state support. In addition, trustee boards have authority for academic programs, personnel decisions, and initiatives for improving institutional facilities. Evidence
Kean University Board of Trustees The Board of Trustees serves as the fiduciary authority of the university, overseeing its legal affairs and its fiscal, academic, and personnel policies and operations. The board approves, for instance, the institutional mission and the curricular requirements for academic programs and degrees. But the board is obligated "to avoid participation in the administration of policy," according to its bylaws, and with the exception of hiring and firing the president himself or herself, may take action on matters of individual personnel only upon the president’s recommendation. Beyond its oversight functions, the board directly participates in institutional fund-raising, its members having a responsibility both to "support institutional fund-raising efforts through personal giving" in proportion to their individual means and to be "willing to share in the solicitation of others," according to the board’s bylaws. In all of its functions, the board is to serve the interest of the public at large, "representing as it does the public interest and Kean University’s mission in behalf of that public interest, rather than any particular constituency of the University," according to the board’s bylaws. Some board members have recently undertaken personal liaisons with the governor, state legislators, and other government officials who represent the general public interest. The board’s communications with the public is accomplished primarily through the Office of University Relations. Board relations with internal constitutencies of the university are restricted by the board’s bylaws to the intermediary functions of the president, who serves as "the agent of the Board in the conduct of institutional affairs" and "as the formal channel of communication to the faculty, staff and student body." Elsewhere in the bylaws, it is directed that all communications to the board shall be transmitted through the president except as the board chairperson shall invite communications. Moreover, the bylaws impose upon the board an explicit obligation to "learn and consistently use designated institutional channels." Additional means of formal communication with the campus include the public business and published minutes of board meetings and the brief (five-minute) remarks the board entertains from the university community at those meetings. Informal communications also ocurs at occasional social events, such as the post-commencement luncheon and the rare party hosted by a campus constituency or board chairperson Trustees are appointed by the governor with the consent of the state Senate. The board may include anywhere from seven to 15 trustees. There are 11 trustees currently serving. Trustees are appointed for six-year terms, but they can continue serving beyond their term until a successor is appointed. In addition to the gubernatorial appointees, the board’s bylaws allow for two student trustees to be elected by the student body, with one serving as a voting member (except in matters prohibited by law) and the other as a non-voting alternate. Two such representatives are currently on the board. Among the 11 gubernatorial appointees are one African-American, two Hispanics, and three European immigrants. Two members are Jewish–one a Holocaust survivor and the other a past president of the National Conference of Christians and Jews–and one member is a Catholic nun and academic who is widely noted for her work advocating Israel and improving Christian-Jewish relations. In terms of professional backgrounds, the trustees are also relatively diverse: attorneys, entrepreneurs, businesspersons, academics or educators, a former state senator and an executive director from the nonprofit sector. Responses to Survey Although the total number of responses by the board to the 30-question survey for this self-study was not large enough to be statistically significant, we thought it prudent, nonetheless, to report on those board members who did respond. When asked if the board’s functions reflected the mission and goals of Kean, 67% of respondents agreed and 33% strongly agreed. Respondents believe that the mission statement provides overall guidance for Kean and that the mission is consistent with the needs of the student population. Also as part of the survey, five questions asked respondents to rank-order statements related to the institution’s mission. The responses were as follows: "Provide access to higher education for students with potential" Rank #1 - 40% Rank #2 - 60% "Provide learning support for students not fully prepared for college" Rank #3 - 20% Rank #4 - 60% Rank #5 - 20% "Offer programs of study that meet the needs of the region" Rank #1 - 20% Rank #2 - 40% Rank #3 - 20% Rank #4 - 20% "Prepare students for their social and professional lives" Rank #1 - 40% Rank #2 - 40% Rank #3 - 20% |