ACCREDITING COUNCIL FOR INDEPENDENT COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS

Transcription

1 VIA AND REGULAR MAIL ID Code (MC) Dr. Heidi Crocker Associate Dean of Academic Affairs Pacific States University 3424 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA Subject: Renewal of Accreditation - Compliance Warning Dear Dr. Crocker: At its December 2018 meeting, the Council considered your institution s application for renewal of accreditation, the evaluation team s visit report, and the institution s response to that report. The team identified nine areas requiring an explanatory response, of which two were satisfactorily resolved. As a result of its review, the Council found the following based on the Accreditation Criteria: 1. There is no evidence that the institution is accurately publishing and awarding credentials consistent with its approval (Section ). The visit report identified the team s concern that the verbiage in the catalog and online implies that students who are required to take prerequisite courses at Pacific States University (PSU) for their master s degree programs complete their programs with more credits than their peers who had met the requirements in advance. In addition, the catalog and website indicate that students may complete a second major and earn more credits in their bachelor or master s degree business administration (BA) program. The issue with these variations in program credits would mean a deviation from the programs (and total credits) as approved by ACICS i.e. an unapproved program. In its response, PSU clarified that master s degree students completing prerequisite courses do not receive those credits in the sum of their programs. At the request of ACICS, the institution provided examples of transcripts for students who had taken the prerequisite courses; these transcripts demonstrated that the prerequisite courses are listed separately under Undergraduate. According to its records, and as identified on the team s report, ACICS approved a bachelor s degree in business administration with concentration options in accounting, computers in business, and marketing. Similarly, one of the active MBA program s approval includes concentration options in accounting, international business, finance, management of information technology, and real estate management. The major is business administration, with possible concentrations. However, the institution publishes, and provided a 2013 transcript which confirms, that students can have double majors 750 First Street, NE, Suite 980 Washington, DC t f ACCREDITING COUNCIL FOR INDEPENDENT COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS

2 Page 2 of 5 an MBA in Accounting and MBA in Finance, for example. This is incorrectly referenced on the transcript and also inaccurately referenced in the catalog and on the website as an option, as well as titling concentration courses major courses. A double major would be a master s degree in information systems and an MBA with a concentration option. Students who pursue multiple concentration options would have to be fully aware of the financial responsibility, as would be evidenced on an enrollment agreement. 2. The institution has not notified the Council of all non-substantive changes to its programs (Section ). For this finding the institution submitted a narrative commenting that it has not made any non-substantive changes to its programs since its renewal of accreditation process in 2014, and that the Academic Credit Analysis form that PSU submitted with the Renewal of Accreditation application contained an error in the calculation of credit hours. The institution also provided an amended Academic Credit Analysis. The previous calculation error was not explained by the institution, but review of the previous academic credit analysis (ACA) uploaded to the application and the ACA submitted in its response indicates that the error was the prior recording of lecture courses as 40 contact hours instead of 44 contact hours a possible discrepancy highlighted in the team report. Yet, the ACA submitted still displays program information that does not match ACICS records; ACICS current records match the program information contained in the institution s 2014 renewal of accreditation visit report (with the exception of three programs which submitted non-substantive changes in 2015 and 2016). Further, the ACA spreadsheets have been completed improperly, as was also indicated in the team s visit report general comments the elective and concentration courses are not configured according to the template s instructions in order to show correct calculations by program. 3. The CEP does not appropriately evaluate student learning outcomes (Section and Appendix K). In response to the original finding, the institution provided a revised CEP which stated that it has initiated a program evaluation of its master s degree programs. Student learning outcomes (SLOs) would be assessed by comparing the GPA for students in the six common courses required across the MBA programs, and within the master s degree in computer science and information systems programs, using grade distribution data. The CEP only presents grade distribution data (letter grades) for students in each program concentration and does not review student GPA. The evaluation of such data is also limited to this statement: The small student enrollment provides data that indicates that there is not a significant difference in GPA in the six (6) required courses relative to the concentration. Therefore, the institution s evaluation of SLOs, does not meet Council requirements - no historical data has been included, no baseline rates or goals have been established, no analysis has been conducted, and no specific, measurable activities have been provided for improvement. More significantly, the evaluation of SLOs does not include direct assessment measures of student learning. In addition, the institution provided no

3 Page 3 of 5 information on the evaluation of SLOs for its active bachelor s degree programs, or at the campus level. 4. There is no evidence that biannual progress reports have been completed (Section ). In its response, PSU stated that its current CEP year started on October 1, 2018, and runs through September 1, 2019, so that it would not have completed its first six-month periodic progress report by the time of the team s visit. The institution did submit copies of minutes for two meetings convened after the ACICS visit. The first, held October 25, 2018, was a staff meeting that had ACICS Findings Progress Report as the first of three agenda items. The agenda of the second meeting on October 30, 2018, had the following line item on the second page: CEP report is complete and attached for review. Discuss highlights and action plan ; however, no CEP progress report was included in the institution s response and it had only been 25 and 30 days since the implementation of the plan. Neither meeting constituted an evaluation of the CEP s periodic progress of its planned activities and outcomes, nor did PSU provide copies of progress reports from the prior year s CEP that would have been completed. 5. Documentation of follow-up studies on graduate and employer satisfaction at specific measuring points following graduate placement has not been provided (Section (c)). PSU indicated in its narrative response that the institution conducts employer satisfaction surveys within 60 days following placement of the graduate, as stated in Appendix I: Letter to Employer of its Career Services Manual. However, the institution did not provide a timeline or policy for conducting follow-up studies on graduate satisfaction, especially at specific measuring points following placement of the graduate, and the lack of specificity for the employer satisfaction surveys could mean that employers could be surveyed anywhere from 1 day 60 days after placement, which does not allow for consistent or appropriate collection of data on employer satisfaction. 6. Community resources in the business programs do not evidence a variety of activities to enhance student enrichment and potential career opportunities (Section (a)). The institution submitted student papers that summarize various types of webinars and videos as evidence of use of community resources in the computer information systems and business programs. Although the institution provided a variety of community resources for the computer information systems program, webinars and TED Talks videos were the only evidence of a community resource provided for the business programs. 7. Documentation of professional growth is not evident for all faculty (Section ). The institution resubmitted a copy of Dr. Zeinab Fawaz s membership in the Academy of Management, and a document of a November 2016 meeting identifying Dr. Fawaz as an incorporator for Mozannar Construction, Inc. Yet, still no evidence of Dr. Fawaz s participation in activities arranged by the Academy of Management have been submitted, nor an executed faculty development plan, and there is no evidence of Dr. Fawaz s involvement with Mozannar Construction, Inc. since November Therefore, there is no evidence of Dr. Fawaz s current participation in professional growth.

4 Page 4 of 5 Council Action Therefore, the Council acted to extend the current grant of accreditation through May 31, 2019, place your institution on compliance warning, and require the following information prior to its April 2019 meeting: 1. Evidence that the institution is accurately publishing and advertising the concentration options in its bachelor s and master s degree programs and that it has the appropriate enrollment agreements to reflect students status. Documentation must include, but is not limited to, a revised catalog and webpages with corrected information concerning a major with various concentration options and major courses, and enrollment agreements for students currently enrolled in a major with more than one concentration. The revised catalog must clarify the ability for students to complete more than one concentration within a degree. If there have been graduates who have earned one degree with more than one concentration, the institution must provide copies of official transcripts to evidence its accurate recording and publication of these credentials. 2. Evidence of properly completed ACA spreadsheets for all of the institution s active programs. The institution must also submit non-substantive change applications to ACICS to remedy any discrepancies identified, upon appropriate completion of the ACA, between the institution s current program information and ACICS currently approved information for the programs (located in the institution s Member Center and in its renewal of accreditation visit report). Documentation of ACICS acknowledgment of the changes must also be included in the institution s response. 3. A revised CEP that includes direct assessments of SLOs (see Glossary definition of Direct Assessment Competency-based Program for examples) that will yield meaningful, measurable results for each academic program and at the campus level; the rationale for selecting the SLOs; a description of the methodology used to collect SLO data and the data collected; baseline rates or levels, and goals for each SLO. Additionally, the revised CEP must provide a summary and analysis of the data collected; specific activities to achieve the institution s established goals; and an explanation of how the data are being used to improve educational processes. 4. Evidence that the CEP has been, and is scheduled to be, evaluated periodically. Documentation must include, but is not limited to, a copy of the first periodic progress report completed by the institution for the CEP period. The evaluation of the progress report must be congruent with findings from data collected and provide supporting documentation of the implementation of the goals and specific activities listed in the CEP. The institution must also provide a two-year plan for review of the CEP to ensure that periodic and annual reports, along with listed activities, are completed.

5 Page 5 of 5 5. Evidence that an appropriate policy for conducting follow-up studies on employer and graduate satisfaction at specific measuring points following placement of the graduate has been developed and is being implemented. Documentation must include a copy of the revised policy as well as completed satisfaction surveys that include placed and unplaced graduates, as well as information on the graduates dates of employment to evidence consistent implementation of the institution s policy for studying satisfaction post-placement. Alternatively, the study of graduates and employers following placement does not have to be a survey and the institution may submit any report of its study to determine any trends that 6. Evidence that a variety of community resources, appropriate for the characteristics of the business administration programs, is being utilized to enrich students. Examples of those resources include, but are not limited to, guest speakers from the business community and field trips to local businesses in the area, etc. 7. Evidence of Dr. Fawaz s participation in professional growth. Documentation must include a current and executed faculty development plan, complete with supporting evidence of listed activities that have been completed within the current year. The information listed above must be received in the Council office electronically, via upload to the institution s Renewal of Accreditation application, by February 28, The institution s ongoing attention and efforts toward continuous improvement are a very important component of its accredited status, and your responsiveness to this Council action letter is essential to a favorable outcome for both the institution and its students. The Council is obligated to take adverse action against any institution that fails to come into compliance within established time frames without good cause, pursuant to Title II, Chapter 3, Introduction of the Accreditation Criteria. Please contact Mr. Andre McDuffie at amcduffie@acics.org or (202) if you have any questions. Sincerely, Michelle Edwards President and CEO c: Ms. Cathy Sheffield, Accreditation and State Liaison, U.S. Department of Education Mr. Robert Bayles, California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (robert.bayles@dca.ca.gov) Ms. Rachel Canty, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Student Exchange and Visitor Program (rachel.e.canty@ice.dhs.gov)