A Report to the Drake Board of Trustees Therese

Drake CBPA – Moving Forward A Report to the Drake Board of Trustees Therese M. “Terri” Vaughan, Dean October 18, 2014 Where We’ve Been • 
May 7, 2014 – AACSB accepted Drake’s request to withdraw from the accreditaOon process   Drake may reapply for accreditaOon on May 7, 2015 • 
June 1, 2014 – I began a “deep dive” into the CBPA’s operaOons • 
Mid-‐June – Provost Jones and I retained two consultants   Jerry Trapnell, Dean Emeritus, Clemson University and Immediate Past ExecuOve Vice President/Chief AccreditaOon Oﬃcer, AACSB InternaOonal   Randy Boxx, Dean Emeritus, Shenandoah University and University of Mississippi • 
August 22 – faculty retreat, consultants’ recommendaOons were discussed, and we began to develop a plan to address issues March 7, 2014 report’s conclusions The ConOnuing Review Team recommended accreditaOon be revoked, ciOng a lack of progress on two issues idenOﬁed in the 2011 report: • 
Faculty qualiﬁcaOons “Unfortunately, we do not believe the CBPA has met the “reasonable progress” criterion as there conOnues to be widespread shor]alls in the deployment of AQ faculty . . . Diﬀerent resource allocaOon decisions were needed at both the University and College levels to expedite process on AQ issues, and while there has been progress, there has not been suﬃcient change in the culture regarding research in the CBPA.”   While the number of AQ faculty increased from 24 to 30, the number of PQ faculty decreased from 38 to 22. Consequently, the percentage of “Other” faculty has not improved since 2010. • 
Resources “Overall, the PRT believes that the CBPA and Drake University could and should have moved much more aggressively in terms of faculty support to add addiOonal faculty posiOons, shrink class sizes, and dramaOcally increase support for research, parOcularly with summer research grants.” Consultants’ Report -‐-‐ Strengths • 
Drake and CBPA are highly regarded by prospecOve students and employers • 
UG students are highly qualiﬁed, many from the mid-‐west • 
Faculty is commided to students and their success • 
Culture for change is posiOve • 
Students are enthusiasOc and appreciate access to faculty • 
Professional staﬀ and Center for Professional and Career Development Services are strong assets • 
Advisory Boards are enthusiasOc, but want more engagement • 
New era of transparency is well received and an opportunity for progress • 
Joint majors provide a strong beneﬁt for students • 
Many internal processes are in place, but could be improved OpportuniFes for Improvement   Strategic Plan   Curriculum and processes for ongoing management of curriculum   QuanOty and qualiﬁcaOons of faculty, research support   Pedagogy, IT support   AdministraOve structure   Stakeholder engagement   Right-‐sizing resources Timeline for regaining accreditaFon • 
PracOcally, we must have a plan to address the problemaOc issues from the 2014 report   Class sizes   Research support • 
Revisions to the curriculum may help to reduce class sizes, but addiOonal faculty resources are likely to be needed.   In the classroom?   For research? • 
Board of Trustees discusses drah budget in January. New posiOons are veded by the Deans’ Council in the late spring. Budget is ﬁnalized in June. • 
Goal: To include a speciﬁc Omeline for resolving resource issues in our applicaOon to the AACSB in June. This requires deﬁning our needs during the FY 2015 budget process, or by early 2015. Timeline for regaining accreditaFon: best case scenario • 
Mid-‐June 2015 Submit applicaOon • 
August 2015
ApplicaOon accepted by AACSB IniOal AccreditaOon Commidee (IAC) • 
Mid-‐Sept. 2015 Submit iniOal self-‐evaluaOon report (iSER) • 
November 2015
Receive feedback on iSER • 
February 2016 Submit SER • 
April 2016
SER accepted by AACSB, PRT appointed • 
June – Aug. 2016
PRT visit • 
November 2016
AACSB IAC approval Our (evolving) work plan 1. 
Strategic Plan -‐-‐ by November 2014   New vision and mission that recognize our disOncOve strengths 2. 
Curriculum – by Dec. 2014   Review core and make recommendaOons   size, nonbusiness courses, technology, analyOcs, wriden communicaOon skills   Review graduate programs and make recommendaOons   Develop plans for review of degree por]olio, curriculum in the majors, ongoing curriculum management, AOL   Establish proper caps on class sizes 3. 
Faculty quanOty, composiOon, and support – by January 2015   Deﬁne research and outreach expectaOons – by Dec. 2014   Deﬁne the desired mix of SA, SP, IP, etc. – by Dec. 2014   Compare current faculty size and mix with our needs, idenOfy gaps – by Jan. 2015   Deﬁne needs for faculty research support. – by January 2015 4. 
Pedagogy – by Feb. 2014   IdenOfy ways to promote student/faculty collaboraOon and develop implementaOon plan   IdenOfy classroom technology needs Our (evolving) work plan 5. 
AdministraOve Structure – by April 2015   Review structure of the departments and make recommendaOons   Deﬁne the role of department chair, college governance 6. 
Engage external consOtuencies – ongoing   IdenOfy speciﬁc tasks for the NAC, actuarial science advisory board, and accounOng advisory board   Create execuOve-‐in residence program (for fall 2015)   Increase engagement with alumni (May 2015)   Website – school, department, and faculty webpages (March 2015) 7. 
Resource Plan – by Feb. 2015   Long-‐term   Philanthropic case   AcOon Plan QuesOons and Final Thoughts

Download Report