And the debate over AACSB continues–Now in the Chronicle

And yet another round of debate about AACSB accreditation in The Chronicle of Higher Education.  This one features Kutztown’s very own, Ken Ehrensal.

Accreditor Re-Ignites Debate Over Business-School Faculty Credentials

Read Full Post »

wading back into work

For the past couple of weeks I’ve been spending time with my family, refinishing my deck (for which the weather has NOT cooperated), doing house repairs, and, basically, reflecting upon this past year as I prepare to enter my 8th year at Kutztown.  I have to admit that this past year has taken a significant toll on me, in particular, my notorious deep reserves of hope.  In my post back in the end of June, I was poking away at some of reasons for this:

While the tendency to criticize an issue and wait for “someone else” to take up the labor is certainly not limited to Kutztown University, I have always been part of groups at other institutions who had a kind of DIY ethic.  That is, I’ve generally been surrounded by people who, when faced with a problem, tended to immediately begin to generate creative solutions without waiting to be given permission.  In those contexts, we always felt a sense of ownership of the issue–and a kind of core belief that “if you want to get something done, you’ve got to do it yourself.”…

…What’s amazing about that DIY ethic is that it is hopeful–a basic belief in the creative labor of self-organizing groups–affinity groups, if you will.  While our frustrations were deep, we tended to gravitate toward possibilities–whether those possibilities included putting on shows, carrying out “guerrilla art” campaigns, building shanty towns on university campuses, occupying administration buildings, living collectively, or starting our own independent zines and newspapers.  And we did these things.  They weren’t just ideas.  Wecreated and built and produced.

This past weekend I was at a Writing Program Administration conference in Philly and met up with some friends and their kids.  It was the first time that my friends and their families met my son, Rowan.  These were some of the friends I had in mind when I wrote that post.  I told them about some of my frustrations about Kutztown–in particular issues with my union work.  I have to admit that it was somewhat comforting to hear that I was not alone in my frustrations of doing organizing work in academic institutions.  One of my friends talked about her frustration with academics who all have great ideas, but are unwilling to do the work of organization to make those ideas concrete. One of my other friends talked about how important it was to take a leave just to reevaluate one’s relationship to her academic institution.  I shared stories about moments of opportunity amidst “crisis” in which faculty had a chance to take the initiative and reconstitute their working conditions, but chose, instead, to play the role of victim/critic (I think these two terms can operate too frequently as a debilitating binary).

Earlier last week, I met up with one of my oldest friends and his family who live in Northern Ireland.  They were back in Central New York visiting family, so we headed up for a one day visit.  He and I got on a similar conversation…or, I should say, I got us on to a similar conversation.  We were talking about how the political work we did back in Syracuse was not only engaging, it was FUN.  That’s right, FUN.  We enjoyed the work of political organizing and our community was strengthened by such work.  Why was it then, I asked, that this relationship is so absent at KU?  He shrugged his shoulders as did I.  “Beats me,” we both seemed to say.

All of these questions came back to me front and center upon my lukewarm return to work and preparation for the coming semester. I read through a chain of emails posted on the faculty listserv doing some bashing of our union leadership.   Some of the issues raised in these emails are not without merit–especially when it comes to communications processes over the summer.  It is true, as one faculty member wrote in regard to significant organizational changes being pursued by KU’s administration, that the union should provide members with a “continuing update” about what is going on (while, at the same time, questioning whether or not the union leadership is doing anything at all).

Point taken.  There is no doubt that it’s been a challenge keeping updates coming, especially over the summer when not all members of our Executive Committee are one campus everyday as they would be during the academic year.  And yet I think most of us on our Executive Committee would agree that there needs to be better communication networks over all.  That is true for ALL aspects of our union’s work.

What becomes a bit disenchanting for me is that on several occasions I’ve asked some of the same people who are so pissed off now to help with some of the work.  In response to personal emails providing sketches of analyses and rhetorical questions, I’ve asked people to step up and contribute–not as some kind of challenge, but because we genuinely need more members with expertise in particular areas to help combat the administration’s moves to retrench faculty and eliminate or change programs. That doesn’t seem unreasonable.  But, more often than not I receive, instead, a host of reasons why they are unable to do that work.  I’ll never understand why there is always more than enough time to write lengthy emails filled with detailed criticisms, but always insufficient time to contribute to building a stronger union.  But, this is where we are.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am the last person who will sit here and tell you that our local or statewide union is above criticism.  In many ways, I might surprise many people in our union with the sharpness of my own critiques.  However, my approach as been to look for ways to get involved and change things.  It’s that’s old DIY principle again: If you don’t like something, doing something about it by doing the work to fix it.

Despite the temptations, I’ve consciously tried to avoid engaging in personal critiques or fanning the factional flames in public forums that can potentially weaken our union. But as the beginning of the 2010-2011 academic year approaches–a contract negotiation year to boot–I think it’s necessary for “new ideas” and “criticisms” to be accompanied by a willingness to do the work to either make those ideas concrete or correct problems.  Maybe this is just too much to ask for.  We shall see.

Anyway, I’ve got more to say on a couple of other things, but I’ll do so in separate posts so as not to extend this already-too-long post further.

Read Full Post »

updates from APSCUF-KU meet and discuss

Hey all.  Once again I am bringing you my notes from our local Meet and Discuss on Tuesday, May 4th.  And, once again, I will issue the disclaimer that these are not the “official minutes.”  These are notes that I took at the meeting and then revised.

Here’s a quick look at a few of the most significant issues discussed:

• The Administration announced that it was eliminating the Department of Advisement
• The Administration announced that it was placing into moratorium the BA in Theater and the minors in Musical Theater and Theater.
• The Administration announced that it was placing into moratorium the RN to BSN in Nursing as well as the MSN in Nursing
• The Administration announced that Dance classes will no longer be taught beginning fall 2010
• No final decision has been made about the Department of Academic Enrichment, Electronic Media, or Philosophy.  These departments remain under review
• The Administration is currently reviewing ALL release time.  This includes release time for directing programs such as the Women’s Center, the LBGTQ Center/Allies, and the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching.  We were told, however, that the Director for Honors is safe for next year at least

Certainly cannot call these “highlights.”  It was a very grave meeting for the most part.  I’ll leave things there.  To check out my complete notes, follow the link below.

Meet and Discuss Notes May 4 2010

Read Full Post »

just when you thought it was safe to stop talking about AACSB

So.

As if we don’t have enough on our plate as it is.  President Cevallos is pursuing retrenchment, while remaining committed to funding the College of Business’s AACSB accreditation aspirations.  Or, should I say, President Cevallos’s aspirations for the College of Business. President Cevallos’s choice to continue to pursue AACSB accreditation in light of the current “fiscal crisis” raises questions about the administration’s budget figures on the one hand and President Cevallos’s judgement on the other.

That is, by some estimates Kutztown may be looking at $2.5 million annual incremental cost of pursuing accreditation.  It is rumored (although I have not been able to solidly confirm) that the new strategic plan for AACSB accreditation (which was due to AACSB on April 15th) includes a reduced teaching load for Department of Business Administration faculty as well as continued incentives for research.  APSCUF-KU has requested a copy of the strategic plan, which the administration must provide under Article 29 since Cevallos announced his intention to pursue retrenchment.  In my department, several temporary faculty members have lost their jobs because of Cevallos’s claim that the university is in fiscal crisis (despite KU’s Aa3 bond rating).   In light of this “fiscal crisis” the choice to devote upwards of $2.5 million annually to AACSB accreditation does not make sense.  Unless, of course, the administration’s “fiscal crisis” claims are smoke and mirrors.

But (oh, that’s right), Cevallos “had no choice” in the matter.  He’s simply following orders.

That might have flown in “better” fiscal times, but not now.  In fact, we just found out that other PASSHE universities have completely reversed course on AACSB accreditation given a) PASSHE’s claims of a budget crisis; and, b) the Chancellor’s statements that AACSB accreditation is no longer mandated by that office.  Interested?  Here’s what we have so far:

• Slippery Rock has officially pulled out of the AACSB accreditation process.  This is especially significant for Kutztown since President Cevallos has repeatedly used Slippery Rock as a model for AACSB accreditation and their move to create a Professional Studies department.  Slippery Rock will instead pursue ACBSP accreditation–for the same reasons for which Kutztown faculty argued: ACBSP has a central focus on teaching supported with quality research.
• California appears to have stopped all activity related to AACSB accreditation.
• Millersville also appears have stopped searches related to AACSB accreditation and it is rumored, not yet confirmed, that they have also stopped all activity related to AACSB accreditation.

Let me be clear: this does not mean that all other PASSHE universities have callled off AACSB accreditation.  Edinboro, for example, is still in active pursuit of AACSB.  However, given Kutztown’s supposed fiscal crisis, I think it’s time that President Cevallos get on the horn with his colleagues across the state system and make a case to KU’s Council of Trustees that AACSB accreditation is not a fiscally or academically responsible option at this point in time.

Or, he can do nothing and await the flood of grievances.

Read Full Post »

notes on Cevallos’s case for AACSB: Claim #1

One of the most frustrating aspects of the recent College of Business, AACSB roller coaster has been some of the claims and statements made by KU President Cevallos.  Some of these claims were made in his email to College of Business faculty, others were made at public meetings. It’s not that he is simply making false claims.  False claims are easy to deal with.  What he is doing is using partial truths and spinning them in ways meant to minimize his agency, accountability, or leadership.  I want to run through a few of these claims here.  Ideally, I can do this all in one post…however, I am sitting in the waiting room at the Scion car dealer as my car gets it’s 10,000 mile (actually, 11,700 mile) service.  So, I’ll take it one post at a time:

Claim: It doesn’t matter what the Chancellor says regarding the lifting of the mandate for AACSB accreditation because the KU Council of Trustees issued their own mandate before the Chancellor’s office did.

If this were simply a false claim, we could simply show that his representation of events are wrong.  We could show the date of the Chancellor’s mandate and the Council of Trustees mandate and compare the dates.  The problem with the claim has virtually nothing to do with chronological accuracy. The issue has to do with what his claim is meant to do.

First, the claim is meant to dismiss the importance of the Chancellor’s announcement that the mandate has been lifted.   That is, the claim is meant to raise doubts among members of the KU community (and beyond) that the Chancellor’s words have any real impact on moving forward with AACSB accreditation. The effect of the claim is to suggest that those who have relied upon the Chancellor’s announcement are both misinformed as to what got the AACSB accreditation ball rolling and don’t understand the way the chain of command works.

The problem with this claim is that it has been the Chancellor’s mandate that has driven both the timeline and the insistence upon AACSB accreditation.   I’ve asked several members of the College of Business who have worked on gaining AACSB accreditation and not one of them was told that it was the Council of Trustees that were driving the push for accreditation.  They had all been told explicitly that AASCB accreditation had to be pursued because the Chancellor’s Office said that all College of Business/Business majors located at PaSSHE universities had to gain AACSB accreditation.  If they did not, the previous Chancellor assured them that their programs/colleges would be closed.  Quite a stick, no?

At last week’s University Senate meeting, I asked the president where the deadline or April 2010 for reorganization of the College of Business/AACSB accreditation application came from.  Cevallos answered that the deadline came from AACSB.  A faculty member of the College of Business who has been working on AACSB accreditation confirmed Cevallos’s statement.  Yes, it is true, that AACSB set the April 2010 date.  However, that’s only part of the story.

The reason why the College of Business started the AASCB accreditation clock ticking was because the Chancellor’s Office set fall 2010 as a deadline for universities to show “substantial progress” toward accreditation.  Translation: if the College of Business could not provide persuasive evidence that they were on their way to accreditation by the fall 2010, the proverbial ax could fall.  So, the urgency behind the current timeline had little or nothing to do with the Council of Trustees mandate.

This is important for at least one key reason: the PRIMARY objection of College of Business faculty to the current restructuring is NOT a resistance to accreditation, or even AACSB accreditation.  Rather, the resistance has been to the PROCESS by which the reorganization has proceeded.  Up until a couple of weeks ago, that process had taken place largely under a mandate from the previous Chancellor.  Current Chancellor Cavanaugh’s recent statement regarding the importance of shared governance (see my previous post on this point) was a game changer–or, at the very least, offered the possibility to right some wrongs.

When the Council of Trustees told Cevallos to proceed in spite of the Chancellor’s statements, Cevallos used this as a way to re-write the history of AACSB accreditation at KU.  Part of Cevallos’s s story of his newly found commitment to AACSB accreditation includes telling audiences that AACSB accreditation was “number one” on his job description when he was hired.  Having the body that hired you insist that you achieve the number one item on your job description after seven years is a pretty strong motivator, I guess.

Coming soon: Claim #2: Don’t worry, look at Slippery Rock!

Read Full Post »

quick update on College of Business

“Cevallos” held a meeting today with the faculty of the College of Business to tell them of the adminstration’s plans to move forward with AACSB accreditation.  I put “Cevallos” in quotes, because he began the meeting repeating what he said about the Council of Trustees ordering him to proceed and there was nothing he could do because it was the first thing in his job description.  Then he said that now the question turns to implementation and since that was not his area, he would turn it over to the Dean.  And he did.  Then he sat down in the front row leaving the two Deans and the Provost standing there to run the rest of the meeting.  He must have realized about 10 minutes into the meeting how that looked…so then he stood up and stood behind the Provost for much of the rest of the meeting.

Short of it is that the administration is moving forward with the reorganization of the College of Business.  The long of it is that I have a lot to write about and will hopefully be able to get back to the blog tonight amidst grading all those final papers.

And I’m pretty angry and Cevallos’s persistent spinning of the accreditation process.  More to come.

Read Full Post »

college of business reorganization analysis

As I mentioned a few posts ago, several faculty members from the College of Business sent Cevallos emails concerning AACSB accreditation after Cevallos asked for further faculty input at the Thursday, 12/3 lunch-time meeting.  I asked several of those faculty members if I could post some of their emails here.

Robert Derstine, a professor of Accounting, emailed me today with the go ahead.  His analysis is quite detailed and long; so, rather than post the full-text here, I will post a link to an on-line version of his email.  In addition, Prof. Derstine included several documents with his email.  I am posting them here too.

• Professor Robert Derstine’s email to Cevallos, 12/4/2009
• ANNUAL INCREMENTAL Cost of AACSB Accredidation
• The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Specialized Accreditation is Not Right for All”

Read Full Post »

on shared governance and rational planning

A few days have passed since my last post and a host of new voices have weighed in on the latest news that Cevallos is proceeding with the current AACSB accreditation plan.  Cevallos closed out his email to College of Business faculty by saying, “we must move forward immediately in our pursuit of AACSB accreditation for the KU College of Business.  I will ask Provost Vargas and Dean Dempsey to ensure the implementation and accreditation requirements are well communicated within the College.”  What that seems to mean is that Cevallos plans  on moving forward with the plan that was developed this past semester.  That plans is:

• To dissolve all departments in the College of Business.
• Establish two new departments: the Department of Business Administration and the Department of Professional Studies
• All College of Business faculty who are currently Academically  or Professional “qualified” according to AACSB will be moved to the Department of Business Administration.  The remaining faculty, 40% of the faculty in the College of Business will be moved to the Department of Professional Studies.
• Faculty in the Department of Professional Studies will have three years to either a) become Academically qualified and move to the Department of Business Administration (they would not be able to become Professionally Qualified in that time) or develop courses for non-Business majors. For those three years, faculty in the Department of Professional Studies would be able to teach courses for Business majors.
• This plan will be in effect with the beginning of the spring 2010 semester; that is, in just over a month.

Cevallos said in his email to the College of Business faculty on Thursday, 12/4 that the Council of Trustees is making him move forward with this plan.  This move, however, seems to run contrary to what PaSSHE Chancellor Cavanaugh said in a November 20 email to APSCUF-KU President Paul Quinn.  Here’s the relevant portion of the email:

[Paul Quinn] So when you say that Kutztown needs to determine locally whether or not it wants to pursue AACSB accreditation, do you mean that the Kutztown Administration should determine it, or do you mean that the decision should be discussed through shared governance with the faculty and various governing bodies on campus?

[Chancellor Cavanaugh] I would say it needs to be discussed in a shared governance fashion, with very thorough discussion of the pros/cons. With AACSB, as I indicated in my remarks, there are real downsides for not doing it that should be considered. Some faculty indicated to me they came to Kutztown specifically because AACSB accreditation was a goal. Student recruitment also becomes an issue, as I discussed.

[see full exchange here]

While Cavanaugh does indicate potential downsides to not going for AACSB accreditation, he stresses that “it needs to be discussed in a shared governance fashion, with a very thorough discussion of pros/cons.”  Clearly, a 50 minute meeting just over a month before the implementation of a plan to proceed with AACSB accreditation is a sham of shared governance.  No serious discussion of the pros and cons of a serious issues (not to mention a process that will come with a $2.5 million/year price tag) can take place in 50 minutes.

Some faculty at last Thursday’s meeting suggested that there has been a lot of discussion among College of Business faculty about the pros/cons of AACSB accreditation already.  That does seem to be the case.  However, all of that discussion took place under the pressure of a MANDATE from the previous Chancellor’s office.  That is, there may have been quite a bit of discussion, but the decision had already been made.  That’s not shared governance.  Shared governance means that faculty get to deliberate over the best course of action, not simply submit their comments in a comment box (or during a 50 minute meeting).  That is, shared governance is not the same as a customer satisfaction survey.

Over the past several days, several faculty have written detailed and thoughtful emails to Cevallos after he told faculty that is what he would like them to do.  Of course, all of that seemed to have been rendered moot a few hours later at the Council of Trustees meeting (from what I understand, Cevallos did not offer a persuasive case to follow the Chancellor’s appeal to shared governance).   I sent emails to several faculty members and asked for their permission to post those emails here.  If they give me their permission, I will post them.

One of the interesting things now is that the Council of Trustees and the Chancellor seem to be on different pages (I don’t include Cevallos here because it’s pretty clear he will do whatever he’s told to do…what his actual thoughts are on this matter are pretty irrelevant at this point).  So what does this suggest?  Are the Trustees bucking the Chancellor?  Did the Chancellor overstep his bounds?  Who has the authority to mandate AACSB accreditation, the Council of Trustees or the President?  To borrow a phrase from a recent US President, “who’s the decider?”

So, that’s my update on this late Sunday night.  More to come, I’m sure.

Read Full Post »

…and so it goes

The latest chapter in the College of Business drama?  Well, today I had hoped to post a little summary of the discussion at the President Cevallos’s meeting with the College of Business faculty on Thursday, Dec. 3.  This was the meeting that Cevallos billed as the “Pros and Cons” meeting regarding the immediate push for AACSB accreditation.

Well, what a different a day makes.  Earlier today, Cevallos wrote an email to the College of Business faculty letting them know that he was planning on pushing ahead  with AACSB accreditation despite what the Chancellor said about the need to go through shared governance.  Here’s the email:

From: Cevallos, F. Javier
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 3:09 PM
To: COB-Dept
Cc: Quinn, Paul; Sanelli, Maria; Vargas, Carlos; “Snyder, Kim”; Dianne Lutz; Guido Pichini; Jack Wabby; Rich Orwig; Roger Schmidt; Ron Frey; Turpin, Ramona
Subject: AACSB

December 4, 2009

Dear College of Business Faculty,

Thank you for meeting with me yesterday to discuss AACSB accreditation.  I value the feedback received from you regarding this important subject.   I also want to thank all of you who have sent e-mails to me.  I have reviewed each one and truly appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

I know that accreditation is an important issue for all of you.  It is also important to the university, the administration and the Council of Trustees.  In that regard, I have an important update to share with you.

As a background, when the Council of Trustees conducted the search for a new president in 2001, the search committee met with representatives from across campus.   The top priority resulting from those meetings was the desire for AACSB accreditation for the College of Business.  As a result, the pursuit of accreditation was listed at the top of the president’s job description.

As I mentioned at our meeting yesterday, the Council of Trustees had its regularly scheduled December meeting on Thursday afternoon.  When I updated the trustees on current campus issues, I shared the accreditation issue with them in depth, including an overview of the feedback I had received. It was made clear to me by the Council that AACSB accreditation is still a priority to them.  At the 4 p.m. open meeting, the trustees passed a resolution “directing the university president to proceed with the AACSB accreditation plans for the College of Business.”

With that being said, and understanding that the trustees have the authority to mandate this, we must move forward immediately in our pursuit of AACSB accreditation for the KU College of Business.  I will ask Provost Vargas and Dean Dempsey to ensure the implementation and accreditation requirements are well communicated within the College. At our next open forum (we will schedule it shortly) we will focus on working together to achieve this goal.

I want to again thank you for your participation in the dialogue.  We are very excited about the future of our College of Business and hope that you will work with us as we move ahead.  I believe that together we will continue to make the college of Business and Kutztown University the best option for our current and future students.

Sincerely,

F. Javier Cevallos

President

A couple of things that should probably have been expected: 1) that Cevallos would not make a decision.  Instead, he would wait to be  forced to proceed after someone else told him to.  That’s been a pretty consistent trope of his presidency; and, 2) that Thursday’s meeting was a dog-and-pony show that Cevallos could point to show he “considered” the faculty’s position.  As we see from his letter, however, no “consideration” is evident.  What’s evident is that he looked for a justification to proceed with AACSB accreditation despite the Chancellor’s statements.

I hope to post my notes from the meeting on Thursday anyway.  The discussion was quite interesting and was not a discussion Pro/Con accreditation.  Rather, the discussion was much more nuanced.  I would go as far as to suggest that a significant majority of the College of Business faculty would support AACSB accreditation…the problem has to do with HOW the process has been implemented and the unwillingness of the administration to listen to alternative scenarios–i.e. rational planning.

If you are interested in getting another summary of Thursday’s meeting, here is Keshav Gupta’s “Pro/Con” document that he emailed to all faculty and Cevallos on Friday.

Read Full Post »

OK, folks…it took almost a week, but we finally have a statement from President Cevallos about the administration’s intentions regarding the Chancellor’s remarks regarding College of Business accreditation.  As you’ll recall, the Chancellor made it clear that any move forward toward accreditation needed to be part of a shared governance process.  Here’s what Cevallos wrote to faculty late yesterday afternoon:

From: “Cevallos, F. Javier” <cevallos@kutztown.edu>
Date: November 24, 2009 3:10:22 PM EST
To: COB-Dept <cob-dept@kutztown.edu>
Subject: COB meeting re: AACSB/December 3 at 11:00 a.m.

To the Faculty in the College of Business;

There has been quite a bit of conversation since the Chancellor’s November 18 visit to our campus regarding the College of Business and the pursuit of AACSB accreditation.  Although in the past there have been several conversations regarding this particular subject, and we have made significant investments in the College for this purpose, these decisions were made under a PASSHE mandate to accredit academic programs.  The Chancellor has suggested that we should have additional conversations on the campus regarding this issue in light of his new policy regarding accreditation, and I concur.  Given the importance of this issue, and the tight time line we face, I would like to invite the faculty in the College  (as well as APSCUF and University Senate representatives) to a meeting to discuss the matter, on Thursday, December 3, 2009  from 11 to 12:00 p.m. at DeFran 100.  I look forward to a productive discussion that will help us move forward in the best way for the College and the University.

Let’s hope that President Cevallos does not intend for a one hour meeting in the second to last week of the semester count for “shared governance.” At the very least, I hope that a timeline for future discussions will be established.  We’ll see.

Read Full Post »

Latest email from APSCUF-KU President to Faculty

From: Quinn, Paul
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 20:55
To: Faculty
Subject: College of Business Accreditation

Fellow Faculty,

I wanted to provide you with a brief update regarding the College of Business and the remarks made by PASSHE Chancellor Cavanaugh on Wednesday.  As you may or may not recall, the recent reorganization of the College of Business has been planned based on a mandate from the Chancellor’s office for AACSB accreditation.  This was a mandate issued by the previous Chancellor, Judy Hample, and supported by the Board of Governors.  On Wednesday, the Chancellor stated that there was no longer a mandate in effect.  He further supported this with a direct email to me and Ken Ehrensal.  His email reads as follows.

***********************************************************************************

Dear Paul and Ken,

During my visit to Kutztown this week, I was asked whether I mandated AACSB accreditation. I responded that I did not. However, I want to ensure that you understand that my predecessor, Chancellor Hample, did indeed mandate such accreditation, and did state that failure to obtain accreditation would likely result in departmental or program elimination. Consequently, decisions on campuses were made, including hiring decisions, that were in response to that mandate. My recent change in that mandate reflects a fundamental shift in system requirements. This shift in mandate happened in the past few months as a result of ongoing discussions regarding the new directions for performance funding being addressed by the Task Force.

John

John C. Cavanaugh, Ph.D., Chancellor
Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education
Dixon University Center
2986 N. Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110

***********************************************************************************
This new information changes the rules of the game.

Given this APSCUF-KU thinks the following:

1) the reorganization of the College of Business needs to stop immediately while we have a chance to digest the Chancellor’s Decision and process its effect on our University;

2) the administration and the faculty of the College of Business need to immediately revisit the accreditation process and discuss whether or not to pursue this or any other accreditation

On Monday, November 23 at 4pm APSCUF-KU will hold a special Executive Committee meeting at which time, we will discuss how to best move forward.  The Provost, Dr. Vargas, will be coming to the meeting to answer any questions we have and discuss the change in the mandate with us.  Then, on Tuesday, November 24, members of APSCUF-KU Exec will be meeting with the faculty in the College of Business to discuss how to best move forward. Thanks.

Paul

Read Full Post »

Chancellor says: info regarding change in mandate shared in September

One additional piece of information regarding when the Chancellor’s office announced changes in the mandate for College of Business accreditation.  Here’s what the Chancellor says:

From: Cavanaugh, John [jcavanaugh@passhe.edu]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 3:04 PM
To: Quinn, Paul
Subject: AACSB update

My memory failed in relation to state Meet and Discuss. I went back and checked and it’s in the minutes taken at the September 18 meeting. The information that the system would be no longer be mandating accreditation was shared at that meeting. As I indicated earlier, we don’t have any new written policies/procedures. Those will develop over time.

So, according to the Chancellor, the announcement that PaSSHE will no longer be mandating accreditation was made in September.  What happened from that point, according to PaSSHE at least, is now the question.

Read Full Post »

PaSSHE Chancellor reponds to APSCUF-KU’s questions regarding College of Business

Hey everyone.  New information about the College of Business.  APSCUF-KU President, Paul Quinn has been trying to get concrete information regarding new PaSSHE policy regarding AACSB accreditation.  Below you will find Paul’s questions to the Chancellor and the Chancellor’s responses.  The Chancellor’s responses are in BLUE:

From: Cavanaugh, John

To: Quinn, Paul

Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:14 AM

Subject: RE: AACSB

Paul,

Thanks for your note. See specific replies below.

John

From: Paul Quinn [mailto:quinn@kutztown.edu]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 10:53 AM
To: Cavanaugh, John
Subject: Re: AACSB

Dr. Cavanaugh,

Thanks you for your email message this morning.  This is the first time we have had real clarity from PASSHE on this issue.  We are still trying to digest the impact of your words here on campus based on where we were in the accreditation process before your statements on Wednesday.

I have a few questions for you in regards to this matter.

1) So when you say that Kutztown needs to determine locally whether or not it wants to pursue AACSB accreditation, do you mean that the Kutztown Administration should determine it, or do you mean that the decision should be discussed through shared governance with the faculty and various governing bodies on campus?  I would say it needs to be discussed in a shared governance fashion, with very thorough discussion of the pros/cons. With AACSB, as I indicated in my remarks, there are real downsides for not doing it that should be considered. Some faculty indicated to me they came to Kutztown specifically because AACSB accreditation was a goal. Student recruitment also becomes an issue, as I discussed.

2) You refer to the shift in mandate that has happend these past few months in your email.  Has this shift been made known to the University Presidents prior to your statements on our campus? There has been general discussion only (i.e., that there would no longer be a mandate) recently. As a result, there have been no policy or procedure documents created yet.

3)Was State APSCUF made aware of this shift in mandate or the process that led to the shift in mandate via some sort of memo or the State Meet and Discuss meetings?  Because this change is very recent, I do not believe it has made it yet to the M&D at the state level (though I could be mistaken). That’s a result of the recency of the issue, nothing more. The actual process and details are still evolving, but in fairness to the campus I thought it would be an advance notice to make you aware of the upcoming changes. The performance funding task force will no doubt be recommending more when their work is completed; those will also be brought forward for discussion in appropriate venues (e.g., M&D). But because it had become clear that the accreditation mandate was not going to be one of them, I did not see a reason to withhold that information so decided to pass it along.

I apologize for the directness of my questions, but since your visit to our university, our College of Business has been thrown into a bit of chaos since WE were under the assumption that AACSB accreditation WAS a mandate until your statements on Wednesday.  I am just trying to construct a timeline to discern what happened and how to move forward.  Thanks for your time.  Your assumption was correct—it WAS a mandate until very recently.

Paul

I will try to provide additional updates later today or tomorrow.

Read Full Post »

clarifying statement from PaSSHE chancellor

Just in case their is any question about what the Chancellor’s meaning was when he stated on Wednesday there was no mandate for AACSB accreditation in the College of Business, I wanted to post this.  Paul and Ken (APSCUF-KU President and Vice President) were sent this email this morning from the Chancellor.  They forwarded it to APSCUF-KU Exec and I am posting it here:

Dear Paul and Ken,

During my visit to Kutztown this week, I was asked whether I mandated AACSB accreditation. I responded that I did not. However, I want to ensure that you understand that my predecessor, Chancellor Hample, did indeed mandate such accreditation, and did state that failure to obtain accreditation would likely result in departmental or program elimination. Consequently, decisions on campuses were made, including hiring decisions, that were in response to that mandate. My recent change in that mandate reflects a fundamental shift in system requirements. This shift in mandate happened in the past few months as a result of ongoing discussions regarding the new directions for performance funding being addressed by the Task Force.

John

John C. Cavanaugh, Ph.D., Chancellor
Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education
Dixon University Center
2986 N. Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110

t:  (717) 720-4010
f:  (717) 720-4011
e:  jcavanaugh@passhe.edu
w:  http://www.passhe.edu

I think it’s important that we get absolute clarity on what has been policy, what changed, and when it changed.

Read Full Post »

COB up for discussion

OK, day one of APSCUF-KU XChange and I’ve already received a request from one of our members to put up an issue for discussion.  Here’s the email from Thomas Grant, Associate Professor of Accounting (posted here with his permission):

Kevin, If you are going to be “putting up content for discussion”, how about floating this one:

How many APSCUF members at KU know that between 30 and 40% of the COB faculty were recently given letters from their dean, which stated that within the next 3 to 5 years they will be “phased out” from teaching courses to Business majors? Keep in mind that many of these faculty have been teaching Business majors here at KU for over 20 years and some for over 30 years. This is all part of the push for AACSB accreditation and is penalizing faculty who were hired under a different set of hiring standards (back when students actually mattered and good teaching was something to be respected). Many of us in the COB wonder whether others on campus know about this and if they do, do they care?

Thomas J. Grant
Associate Professor of Accounting

What say you?

Read Full Post »