Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘accreditation’

This originally appeared in Raging Chicken Press on October 21, 2013. It is a fairly long article detailing changes in PASSHE policies regarding new buildings and capital projects. I am including Part 1 of the article here with brief excerpts from other parts. To read the complete article, click “READ THE FULL ARTICLE” at the bottom of the post or go to the original right now by CLICKING HERE

This past July, eight of the fourteen PA State System of Higher Education (PASSHE) universities sent letters to their faculty and staff warning of the possibility of deep cuts, layoffs, and program elimination (what they like to call “retrenchment”). University presidents at California, Cheney, Clarion, Edinboro, East Stroudsburg, Kutztown, Mansfield, and Slippery Rock all shouted “crisis” and warned that unless they resorted to strict austerity measures, the end, would indeed, be near.

Clarion University led the PASSHE austerity train, announcing on August 15th that it would slash over 40 jobs – including 22 faculty jobs – and eliminate a number of academic programs. On September 10th, Edinboro University joined the party announcing it would cut 40 faculty, 9 staff members, six managers and a host of academic programs. Two weeks later, on September 25th, Mansfield University announced it intended to eliminate nearly 20% of their 170 faculty members. That same day, East Stroudburg University indicated that it was slowly marching toward retrenchment. Two PASSHE universities, California and Kutztown, were spared a similar fate this academic year. California University miraculously found that it did not, after all, have an $11.8 million dollar budget deficit as it had reported in the spring. Instead, Cal U is looking at a $5.8 million surplus. Ooops! Kutztown University’s president, Javier Cevallos, announced that Kutztown would be putting off the most painful cuts until next year: “Current estimates project a $10.3 million deficit for 2014-15, which will be addressed through a combination of base budget cuts and one-time funds,” he wrote in an October 2nd “Presidential Update.” And, as I reported last week, Slippery Rock’s provost is seeking a “third way” austerity plan – and if faculty do not agree to departmental transfers by Thursday, October 24, the ax may fall there too. The fate of the remaining PASSHE universities is still unclear. However, university presidents are rapidly approaching an October 30 deadline for reporting their intentions to eliminate any tenured faculty members.

To say it’s been an “interesting” start of the academic year for the 100,000+ students and 6,000+ faculty and coaches at PASSHE universities is an understatement. Left hanging in the balance are people’s current and future livelihoods. As I recently wrote on Raging Chicken, PASSHE’s mantra is that faculty and staff salaries and, more recently, a decline in enrollment are the reasons for the deep budget shortfalls. However, despite their continued proclamations, the numbers have never added up. My most recent post on PASSHE’s budget deceptions, “PASSHE’s Austerity Magic: Save Your Despair for Better Days,” highlighted the significant increases in spending on capital projects – buildings – at Kutztown University. As I suggested in that article, the pattern at Kutztown is not limited to that PASSHE university. In fact, it points to a much more widespread practice that has gone virtually unnoticed until the recent ouster of California University of Pennsylvania president, Angelo Armenti, Jr. (more on that in a little bit).

The budget “crisis” at PASSHE universities has its roots in a long-term defunding of public higher education in PA, Wall-Street-esque risky investment schemes, and a virtual lack of oversight.

Part I: How (Not) to Fund the College Experience

PASSHE Appropriations v ENGPennsylvania vies for the top spot when it comes to the size and cost of its state legislature. PA also has the lowest percentage of public workers in the United States. In the best of times, that scenario might lead to excellent representation and efficient government. More recently, however, it has meant a right-wing Republican Party intent on destroying the public sector and a shrinking number of public employees to handle the work of cleaning up their messes. Anyone paying attention to what’s happened in PA since the 2010 mid-term elections, knows the story all too well. Newly elected governor, Tom Corbett, put public education – K-12 and higher ed – on the chopping block from day one. In his first year as Governor, K-12 schools were cut by $1 billion; PASSHE universities were cut by 20%. The trend has continued. There is no doubt that Corbett’s shock doctrine policies for public education have hit PASSHE universities hard. However, Corbett’s cuts were really a more extreme version of what had been happening for decades. In 1983-84 State appropriations accounted for almost 65% of PASSHE’s budget, while tuition and fees amounted to just over 35%. In 2011-12, State appropriations amounted to just over 25% of PASSHE’s budget, with tuition and fees reaching nearly 75%.

For more than three decades, the “free market” mantra of right-wing think tanks and policy makers, have eroded investment in all things public. However, as Dina Ransor made clear in a 2011 article for Truthout, their claims don’t match their outcomes:

This belief that the “free market” will always do better than the government at any task has increased over the years until each president since Reagan has taken it as a given.

Even Bill Clinton pushed to shrink the federal employee workforce by “outsourcing” the work to supposedly cheaper contract workers to save money during his “reinventing government” effort. This craze to outsource as much of the federal government as possible hit its height during the second Bush administration. Saving money was always the reason given, but there was very little actual proof that this was true.

The situation in Pennsylvania was no different. Over the past three decades, Pennsylvania state legislators of both political parties slowly abandoned investments in public higher education as a public good. Instead, higher education became a “service” or a “commodity” that students – now “customers” – bought. Politicians and policy makers from both political parties gradually, but decidedly, drank the free market Kool-Aid instead of reenergizing efforts to invest in Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education.

While the steady decline in State appropriations significantly contributed to the current “budget crises” at several PASSHE universities, several under-the-radar policy changes at the top-levels of PASSHE’s administration during the last decade have continued to drain the universities’ already diminished “Education and General Fund,” or “E&G” budgets. One of the most devastating came during the tenure of former PA Governor, Ed Rendell. Yes, the Democrat.

Part II: Of Bonds and Balance Sheets (Down the Rabbit Hole)

Until 2000, PASSHE had a fairly centralized process for initiating new building projects on any of its 14 universities and the official guidelines were pretty murky. The one Board of Governor’s policy that addresses planning for new buildings (Policy 1995-01-A), “Facilities Projects Contract Compliance Program” had more to do with ensuring compliance with Act 188’s Nondiscrimination Policy (Section 20-2014-A) with respect to the awarding of state contracts, than it did with laying out a process for making decisions about where to build and why. Under Section E, “Program Administration Responsibilities,” Policy 1995-01-A stated:

The Chancellor of his/her designee shall serve at the program authority to administer a System-wide uniform Contract Compliance Program. Each university president shall be responsible to the Chancellor for implementation of the Nondiscrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity Program at his/her institution. The president may designate and delegate responsibility to a qualified contract compliance officer and other staff as necessary to implement the program.

There is not a single mention of how the Chancellor, Board of Governors, or anyone else for that matter, decides when new buildings need to be built. The one thing this old policy does establish is a centralized process of communication and compliance. That is, it is clear that the Chancellor’s office is where the authority initiates. Administrators at each PASSHE university comply with “orders” issued by the Chancellor’s office.

Policy 1995-01-A was “repealed by the action of Board of Governors on July 13, 2000 and replaced with Board Policy 2000-02, “Capital Facilities, Planning, Programming, and Funding,” on that same date. Board Policy 2000-02 is much more extensive; it lays out the process for making decisions about new buildings. Three parts of the new policy are significant for my purposes here.

1. Decentralize New Building Planning …

2. Privatize Funding for New Buildings and Capital Projects Incrementally …

3. Finance New Building from University Education and General Funds …

***

Part III: Talking to the Taxman about Poetry above the Sounds of Ideologies Clashing so We Can Help Save the Youth of America

Keep in mind that under the current PASSHE Board of Governor’s policy 50% of the funds for new building projects have to come from “alternative funds,” primarily funds raised from external sources. In the post-collapse environment, those “alternative funds” were hard to come by, but the bills were still coming in and universities had to find ways to pay “bond expenses including fees, debt service, and principal” that they had agreed to pay at the beginning of the process. So, universities are forced to dip into their financial reserves and E&G funds to make their bond payments – funds that should have been used for educational purposes.

So, naturally, PASSHE’s Board of Governors stopped approving new building projects in the post-collapse environment, right? I mean it would be irresponsible to issue additional debt for universities who were now struggling to make their existing bond payments, right? Wrong.

Check out this table compiled by the faculty union, APSCUF, based on PASSHE’s 2008-2012 audited financial statements. The top part of the table shows new capital purchases – that is, new buildings and the like – for each of the 14 PASSHE universities over those years. The bottom part of the table shows the interest and/or principle payments toward each of the universities’ debt for those same years.

Capital Debt and Payment

***

Part IV: Smoke and Mirrors Budgeting: There’s More than One Way to Sink a Ship

Do you remember Enron? Here’s a little refresher from Wikipedia:

Enron Corporation was an American energy, commodities, and services company based in Houston, Texas. Before its bankruptcy on December 2, 2001, Enron employed approximately 20,000 staff and was one of the world’s major electricity, natural gas, communications, and pulp and paper companies, with claimed revenues of nearly $101 billion during 2000.[1]Fortune named Enron “America’s Most Innovative Company” for six consecutive years.

At the end of 2001, it was revealed that its reported financial condition was sustained substantially by an institutionalized, systematic, and creatively planned accounting fraud, known since as the Enron scandal. Enron has since become a well-known example of willful corporate fraud and corruption. The scandal also brought into question the accounting practices and activities of many corporations in the United States and was a factor in the creation of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002. The scandal also affected the greater business world by causing the dissolution of the Arthur Andersen accounting company.[2]

Enron Stock TankEnron’s finance people used a whole slew of “off-balance sheet” accounting practices that allowed the corporation to omit significant liabilities – debts – from their official books and filings. Enron, for sure, went far beyond these legal, if not quite ethical, accounting practices and committed numerous acts of fraud. And, the fact is that “off-balance sheet” financing schemes were all the rage when Enron went down in flames.

“Off-balance sheet” financing schemes were especially popular U.S. colleges and universities as a way to finance new building projects in the absence of significant endowments. It was part of the “public-private partnership” (PPPs) craze of the early 2000s that I discussed above. In a 2010 National Association of College and University Business Officers article assessing the impact of the financial crisis on “off-balance sheet” building projects at colleges and universities, Roger Bruszewski, Sam Jung and Jeffrey Turner note that many colleges and universities entered into PPPs “through the university’s existing foundation, a newly developed university-affiliated foundation, or a collaboration with an unaffiliated national foundation that partners with institutions.”  One of “benefits” of this model was that these projects were treated as “off-credit, off-balance sheet transaction[s] that preserved institutional borrowing capacity and balance sheet integrity.” That is, bond rating companies did not consider debt from “off-balance sheet” projects as part of a school’s liabilities. As the authors note, “many of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE) schools have continued to utilize this approach.” However good these schemes looked initially, the authors warn:

Over the past several years, however, the off-credit, off-balance sheet transactions have come under considerable scrutiny from lenders, rating agencies, and accounting standards boards because of the direct or indirect ties between the project and institution. Over time developers and universities learned that a project can meet the qualifications to be off-balance sheet and still be included in an institution’s debt profile. These initial on-campus project financings were completed without any developer equity and as 100 percent “project-based” debt. Typically, a not-for-profit entity owned the improvements (subject to a ground lease) and the developer was paid a fee to complete the project. The capital markets determined that because of the absence of equity, the high loan-to-value ratio, the project-based nature of the debt, and the lack of any meaningful developer commitment to the project, an institution was the only logical backstop in the event of trouble. “This ‘moral obligation’ resulted in potentially negative implications for an institution’s debt capacity,” states Bill Bayless, president and chief executive officer at American Campus Communities.

And, it turned out, these warnings bore fruit. In 2012, the bond rating agency Moody’s downgraded PASSHE’s credit rating from Aa2 to Aa3 (click here for explanation of Moody’s ratings) in part because of increasing debt and off-balance sheet projects. Under “Challenges” for PASSHE, Moody’s listed:

  • High balance sheet leverage from substantial increase in debt since FY 2004, with total pro-forma debt rising to nearly $2.36 billion, driven largely by privatized student housing debt issued for replacement student residences on State System’s university campuses.
  • Debt structure of member university foundations to fund replacement student housing includes variable rate debt requiring bank support or direct bank placement adding risk of liquidity demands of the foundations’ own modest resources and expectations of PASSHE to step in to fund or assume management or ownership of the housing facility

***

Remember the backdrop we’re all working with here. PASSHE university presidents across the state are screaming about budget shortfalls and the need to make deep cuts to faculty, staff and academic programs – and not just at the universities that are most immediately under the budget ax. The new PASSHE Chancellor, Frank Brogan, had made it clear that the cuts will continue, remarking In October 10 during a media briefing, “Make no doubt about it, retrenchment is here.” And the story from PASSHE’s administration continues to be that the “problem” comes from “rising costs” from faculty and staff salaries – no matter how clear the data is disproving that claim.

In reality, the costs of more than a decade of irresponsible building projects and sketchy oversight will be borne by faculty, staff and students. And, like the Wall Street fraud that led to the Great Recession of 2009, the people who gambled with our money – with the money that we expected to be responsibly invested in our future and the future of our children – will walk away, pointing their fingers at all of us.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE on Raging Chicken Press

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

I just got word that some KU students have initiated a call for a protest next Thursday, March 17th — that’s right St. Patrick’s Day! — in opposition to Governor Corbett’s Higher Education Cuts.  You can find details on their facebook event site, but here’s the basics:

Protest Governor Corbett’s Higher Education Cuts

  • WHEN: St. Patrick’s Day! Thursday, March 17, 2011 from 11am – 1:30pm.
  • WHERE: In front of President Cevallos’s house on Main Street (across from Administration building, corner of Main and College)
  • WHAT: Below is the description from the facebook event site:

For those of you who don’t know, on Tuesday Governor Corbett presented his budget to both houses of the PA legislature. In this supposed budget, Corbett is proposing to cut the higher education’s budget by more than 52%. 52%!!! From 465 million to 232 million dollars.

What does this mean to you? This is obviously an attack on the future of availability of higher education for current and prospective students. Not only is Kutztown currently facing a 12 million dollar deficit, and this was before this budget was presented, now that figure is sure to become much larger! For those of us who value our teachers and the affordability of our education this budget is a slap in the face. We have to take a stand together for the future of Pennsylvania. We cannot win the future if our public education system is continuing to take a shellacking by this Governor and by Governors around the union. This is why we need to form this protest and others to continue to show the Kutztown Administration and the Governors’ office that we students will not stand for these cuts!

Join us in front of President Cevallos’ house on campus on Thursday March 17 at 11:00 am. I know its St. Patty’s day and people would rather do other things, but this issue is very important to the future of our education at Kutztown and for the rest of the state. Join us Please!!! Invite your friends and professors to this event. Together we can!

I agree with these students: together we can! Will you be there?

Read Full Post »

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 »

It’s cold and rainy.  A sure sign that fall is well on its way to Eastern PA.

After spending the morning reading and writing, I headed over to the Graduate Center for a meeting with the Director of the Office of Assessment, Gil Clary.  I was meeting in my capacity as the coordinator of composition in the English Department and I was joined by fellow XChange writer, compositionist,  and Director of the University Writing Center, Amy Lynch-Biniek; we were there to talk about assessing first-year composition courses as well as the writing intensive component of the new general education model.

As assessment conversations go, I thought this was a pretty good one.  My experience has been that most conversations about assessment are never easy. Most faculty I know are not resistant to “assessing” their programs, courses, and curricula in principle.  However, for the past couple of decades, assessment has been deployed in a reductionist fashion that has put pressure on educators at all levels to reduce education to numbers you can score on a standardized test.  While standardized tests–like those mandated by No Child Left Behind–provide administrators and policy folks with measurable data to track, those tests do not necessarily tell us about the quality of education.  Like the SAT, those tests only tell us how well students are learning what they will be tested on.

The conversation we had with our KU Director of Assessment today was not like that.  Today we talked a lot about writing and the kind of outcomes we want of our students.  We discussed some of the tricky aspects of assessing a “program” that is not taught primarily by people trained in the field associated with the teaching of college composition: composition and rhetoric.  We talked about what it would look like to assess writing at the university level in a comprehensive and sound manner.  Like I said, it was a good conversation.

But what prompted me to write was not the “goodness” of that conversation.  What prompted me to write was the creeping exhaustion I began to feel toward the end of our conversation and in my rain-soaked walk back to my office.  Amy and I both made it clear that to do assessment effectively and for it to mean anything of significance, requires work.  More to the point: people to do the work.  If KU’s current trend holds, however, there will be no resources available to fund this work.  Rather, faculty and staff will be asked to pile the work of assessment on top of their already overloaded schedules.  No level of threat from Middle States (our accreditation body) will take away the basic fact that in order to do assessment effectively, you need people who have the time and energy to do it.  If you demand more work from people while cutting the resources necessary to do that work effectively, something’s gotta give.

As we heard all last year as the new general education model was being developed and debated, Middle States was insistent that Kutztown implement a new general education model.  Not doing so would mean that the university could be placed on warning like two of our sister institutions, Cheyney and Lock Haven.  So, we did it.  We have a new general education model which will be implemented in fall 2011.  But Middle States wanted more than just a new model.  It wanted the university to develop a means to assess general education and all university programs.  The very existence of Kutztown University’s Office of Assessment was a response to Middle States.  The General Education Task Force did its job and there is a model of general education assessment moving through our governance structure.  What remains to be seen is whether or not the university is actually going put resources behind this Middle States mandated effort.  All current indications seem to suggest that rather than doing so, faculty and staff will be asked to “do more with less.”

Something’s got to give.

Kutztown is a great place to work in many, many ways.  First and foremost, I have had the pleasure of working with incredible and hard-working students.  Kutztown students are the gem of this university and when I think of them, I can think of no place I’d rather be.  Second, I have some of the best colleagues I could ask for.  In my home department, English, I have been part of reconstructing a department from one that was at war with itself to one that stands, as I often find myself saying, as the best department I have ever worked in.  Third, we are unionized.  I have relied upon our contract and my rights under a CBA as a buffer against so much of the pettiness that rears its head in academia from time to time.  In fact, as I write this I realize that these are the three reasons I chose to come to KU in the first place.

At this point, though, I am concerned that so much of what we’ve worked for…so much of the promise of this place…is going to be rolled back under the administration’s budget axe.  “Doing more with less” may be a catchy little jingle that resonates with sectors of the electorate and legislature, but it has very real consequences on people’s lives.  It has very real consequences for the quality of education we can provide as a public university.

So, yes, this might just be cold, grey skies speaking.  I hope so.  Another year of exhaustion is not what the doctor ordered.

Read Full Post »

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 »

As most readers of the XChange know, Kutztown University President, Javier Cevallos has frequently mentioned (at least since his meeting with the Board of Trustees) AACSB accreditation being #1 in his job description.  Given that Cevallos has used his job description as support for his lack of agency in doing anything but moving forward with AACSB accreditation and reorganization of the College of Business, I thought we should take a closer look at ALL aspects of his job description.  Click to the link below to access his full job description.

Cevallos Job Description (PDF)

Read Full Post »

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 »

Older Posts »