As noted in the report, the team visited the campus when we were in the process of recasting our mission and vision statements. Since that time, we have adopted new mission and vision statements that we believe accurately reflect our thinking. The new statements, which have been largely crafted by the broad-based University Planning and Budget Committee and approved by our Faculty Senate, President, and the CSU Board of Trustees, are included on the following page. 

We believe that the current mission and vision statements, which are quite different from the draft that was circulating when the Visiting Team was here, address many of the concerns expressed in the Team’s report. One concern—that, "The CCSU mission is in apparent conflict with that of the CSU System, which speaks only to teaching."—must be addressed. At CCSU, we "value the development of knowledge and its application in an environment of intellectual integrity and open discourse. We expect that members of the university will engage in activities ranging from basic research and the creation of original works, to helping individuals and organizations achieve success in purely practical endeavors. All these activities enrich our community of learners." 

Research at CCSU is not an activity that takes professors away from students, but one that involves students in learning the way their professors learn. This is not at odds with the position of the CSU system. True, the system mission statement does not speak explicitly about research, but it does state, in the "Fulfilling the Mission" section that, "In both classroom and experiential learning, we will emphasize problem solving, critical thinking and the ability to analyze data, use information technology and communicate clearly." In the CSU Strategic Plan, these thoughts are reinforced: "Active learning prepares students to succeed in today's world by creating an environment that nourishes exploration, discovery and our students' own ability to construct knowledge." It is hard to imagine a better way to accomplish these ends than research projects where students work alongside their professors. The "proof of the pudding" lies, of course, in the fact that the Board of Trustees for CSU did approve the current mission statement. 

Concerns about planning and evaluation at CCSU are well founded—we expressed most of them ourselves in the self study. We have been or are now in the process of addressing the points raised: 

The shared-governance structure at CCSU has been in place for many years and has not been altered significantly since the advent of collective bargaining here some 20 years ago. It is true that some faculty members feel left out of the discourse, but this is probably true at many medium- to large-size universities. The old saw about universities being impervious to information is as true here as elsewhere. 

Virtually all of our planning and budgeting information is published and available to faculty, students and all others. We do not print and distribute individual copies of these large documents, but we make them available on-line, in various offices and in the library. We distribute regular publications in which we call attention to important matters. Because we sometimes receive mandates to create or deliver planning and/or budget information on very short notice, we are not always able to afford as much deliberation as we want. However, we do try to involve as many people as possible. 

While "some members of the campus community … express [the] concern that the institution was returning to a state of provincialism," we can certainly challenge its basis in fact: 

Seven major administrative positions were filled on an interim basis at the time the self-study process was initiated. Six of these positions have now been filled permanently, adding two women, two men of color and an international scholar as permanent appointments. We have, thus, made major strides in increasing the diversity of our senior administration. The Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of Graduate Studies, remains interim pending consultation on the organization of graduate studies. 

We are indeed concerned about the retention rate. We are also concerned about the amount of transferring among institutions that students do, especially since articulation agreements make this increasingly easy. Our concern is that the amount of movement will be at the expense of the coherence of the students’ undergraduate experience. We have an Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs who has Retention Strategies as his primary focus and responsibility. 

Since the report mentions the accreditation by NCATE of our teacher education programs, we feel it is also appropriate to mention that the Marriage and Family Counseling program and the Nursing Program, also in the School of Education and Professional Studies, also hold national accreditation by the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists and the National League of Nursing, respectively. Other national accreditations include: 

The General Education Committee is continuing its study of the goals of the program and the specification of measurable outcomes. We anticipate completion with clear assessment procedures in place by year’s end. 

Graduate Studies, as the visiting team’s report points out, is currently being reorganized. Several initiatives are underway: 

Deans have been asked to review the graduate programs and courses in their area to ensure that the programs are not "advanced undergraduate courses," but are rigorous graduate academic courses and programs. Each dean has been asked to complete a needs assessment of programs in their area which includes:

• Program Name (Include MA, MS, Certification, Post Baccalaureate Certification, and Post Masters Programs) 

• Number of 400 level and 500 level courses in each program and percent of each 

• Additional work requirements (which are clearly documented in the course syllabus) for 400-level courses used in graduate programs.
   

The visiting team also noted that the committee structure for the thesis varies considerably. A committee consisting of only one person is not in compliance with graduate school policy. The Interim Dean has asked the school deans and the Graduate Studies Committee to address these problems. 

A faculty senate ad hoc committee on graduate school restructuring has completed its report and the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the President have concurred. They recommend that an academic officer, probably an Associate Vice President, be assigned responsibility for oversight of all graduate programs, serve as an advocate, and propose policy for approval by the Graduate Studies Committee and/or graduate oversight committee. The assigned person will also work with deans of the academic schools, the registrars office, the enrollment center, and the admissions office to ensure that student and faculty questions are answered, and that issues relating to graduate education are addressed. 

The committee further recommended that an additional committee be created. This group would be smaller than the Graduate Studies Committee and would advise the deans regarding policy issues, and exercise oversight and monitoring functions for the total graduate program. 

We are also thinking about how best to ensure that graduate programs are assessed appropriately, especially in departments where there is no external validation, such as in program accreditation. We anticipate an assessment program that would be administered by the new graduate oversight committee and run separately from the program-review process now in place. Thus, issues peculiar to graduate programs (e.g., proportion of the program comprised of 400-level courses and thesis preparation) could be consistently addressed.

Reliance on part-time faculty: We have found it both necessary and desirable to rely on field-based practitioners and some independent scholars as part-time faculty. The proportion of the credit load that part-time faculty may carry is prescribed by the CSU-AAUP collective bargaining agreement. We are normally well within the limit allowed. Departments with large proportions of their enrollment in remedial and entry-level courses (e.g., Mathematical Sciences and English), have a substantially greater part-time teaching contingent than others. In general, however, the number of full-time faculty is appropriate for our mission and program mix. 

Our new mission statement is clear that we encourage research on the part of faculty members. Judgments regarding the value and success of research projects are made by the appropriate department head and dean, and clearly figure into decisions about tenure and promotion. Research efforts, as noted in the report, are supported to the extent we can do so, with space and release from teaching duties. We are not a research university and we expect research efforts to enhance faculty-student relationships. After the discussions held on campus through the fall and winter regarding the University’s mission and vision, we believe that this vision of faculty research is widely and enthusiastically supported by faculty and students alike. 

We have made many attempts to provide support—especially technological support—to our faculty. In the area of computer support, we have for some time had a policy of giving the faculty members whatever they request and justify. Some have not asked, thus, have not received. Some have not been able to justify their requests. Most, however, have been provided with the technology they require, including help in learning how to use it. This has been our priority for several years and we continue to make progress. 

Burritt Library: The team’s observations regarding the library are quite accurate and we are painfully aware of the shortcomings. We have made some progress in increasing staffing levels over the past few years, but know that we have a way to go in that area—further perhaps than the team’s recommended two additional for the Systems librarian. 

We are also trying to address the facility’s shortcomings identified in the report. Our entire campus has many deficiencies, owing for the most part to Connecticut’s willingness to live with deferred maintenance. As noted in the report, we are now undertaking a great many "catch-up" and improvement projects to make our facilities safe and attractive. Ironically, major library renovation is not even on the existing list (due to the urgency of the projects that are already planned). Our new Chief Administrative Officer has identified the library as a priority, however, and, while a major overhaul will have to wait a bit longer, many of the deficiencies noted in the teams’ report will be corrected or at least ameliorated within the next year or two. 

Computing: CCSU has over the years managed to provide faculty and students with excellent access to current technology. This has been increasingly difficult (as everywhere) in an age of infuriatingly rapid obsolescence, but we have, we believe, kept up pretty well. We do provide the best technical support we can to members of the campus community, given the resources we have, but it is clearly not at the level all of us would like. 

Regarding upgrades to faculty hardware and software, we are constrained by the small number of people we have available to do the work; the same people who are assigned to provide not only upgrades but also all other user support and repair services. 

We have recently integrated our computer, media and telecom operations under one office and we are in the process of redesigning the systems by which computing equipment is bought and installed campus-wide. We expect that we will be able to provide better services as a result. 

The team’s observations here are accurate. Early estimates from Dober, Lidsky, Craig Associates, the consultant managing the ongoing master planning process, are that CCSU is more than 250,000 assignable square feet short of where we should be in order to meet current needs. Facility planning and construction are exceedingly complex process in Connecticut. Average conception to completion times for new buildings is about nine years. We must emphasize that almost none of the process is under the control of CCSU or any "end user". We must also add that the capital projects "system" is much better than it used to be, though still horrendous. 

Thus, we are torn between the needs of our programs for specialized spaces and the changes in need that occur while the spaces are created at glacial speeds. We have tried to design new spaces as flexibly as possible, knowing that the needs will change by the time they are addressed. Regarding the academic building on which we are now commencing construction (some six years after the original program was approved), we will be reconsidering our original plans and some of the space will be reallocated. Fortunately, in this particular case, the space is not so specialized that major changes will be required. 

Again, the picture painted in the team’s report is quite accurate and reflects the situation that existed at the time of their visit. We have been committed for some time to the idea of establishing a planning-budgeting-assessment process, in which the University Planing and Budget Committee would play a major role. As mentioned under 2 above, we are now in the process of putting such a system in place. 

The Evaluation Report cites the marketing study that indicated we had work to do regarding customer-friendliness. Since this study was conducted, the University undertook additional market research to position CCSU in the marketplace and developed an aggressive external recruitment-marketing plan complete with budget and staffing requirements. Simultaneously, the University sponsored programs for our internal constituency aimed at developing the customer/client culture which was so sorely lacking. 

The marketing plan’s external tactical initiative outlines a complete program aimed at both core towns and border towns of CCSU’s primary service region and addresses both student and adult (parent) populations. The program contains radio, television and newspaper advertising which tactically targets these populations at various stages in the college consideration process from late high school sophomore year through the summer of the senior year before entering college. The plan also contains a number of high-energy, high-visibility recruitment outreach activities targeted at these same populations as well as an enhanced recruitment publications program. A marketing coordinator position is necessary for proper staffing along with retaining outside counsel for creative development and media buying. The total cost of the plan for the first year is $1.6 million. We will address the financing and staffing implementation issues of the plan in the 1999-2000 spending plan development. 

Dr. Hakim Salahu-Din, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs , has responsibility for developing, implementing and evaluating retention strategies. In spite of the fact that the office is relatively new and has had little support from the institutional research office (which, as noted in the report, has been otherwise occupied), progress has been made. A list of key performance indicators is in place and Dr. Salahu-Din is working with the first-year experience program and other offices to improve our student retention.