March 26, 2001

Dr. Richard L. Judd

President

Central Connecticut State University

1615 Stanley Street

New Britain, CT 06050

Dear President Judd:

It is my pleasure to inform you that at its meeting on March 2, 2001 the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education took the following action with regard to Central Connecticut State University:

that the institutional report submitted by Central Connecticut State University be accepted;

that the fifth-year report scheduled for submission in Fall, 2003 be confirmed;

that, as outlined in our letter of May 11, 1999, in addition to providing the information included in all interim reports, the University give emphasis to the institution's success in:

implementing the strategic plan to achieve institutional goals and objectives outlined in the newly-adopted mission;

implementing a comprehensive institutional effectiveness plan that includes outcomes measures for each academic program;

further improving the quality and consistency of graduate programming;

that the scheduling of the next comprehensive evaluation for Fall, 2008 be confirmed.

The Commission gives the following reasons for its action.

We commend the University for having made significant efforts to strengthen the graduate programs by clarifying the difference between graduate and undergraduate course offerings. The Commission notes with favor that the institution has placed a limit on the number of 400-level courses that a graduate student may apply toward a master's degree and that graduate students enrolled in such courses are given additional graduate-level assignments; in addition, the University has developed "bridge" courses that are offered at the 500-level. At the same time, a thesis guide has been developed, as well as a graduate school admission statement. Structurally, the graduate programs have been enhanced by the establishment of a Graduate Studies Committee whose membership consists of departments that offer graduate programs and by the formation of a policy committee with representation from each division.

As you know, Commission policy requires a fifth-year report of all institutions on a decennial evaluation cycle. Its purpose is to provide the Commission an opportunity to appraise the institution' s current status in keeping with the policy on Periodic Review. In addition to information provided in all interim reports, the areas to be given emphasis in the University's 2003 report are matters of particular relevance to the standards on Planning and Evaluation and Programs and Instruction, as set forth in our letter of May 11, 1999.

Finally, the scheduling of a comprehensive evaluation in Fall, 2008, is consistent with Commission policy requiring each accredited institution to undergo a comprehensive visit at least once every ten years.

You are encouraged to share this letter with all the University's constituencies. It is Commission policy to inform the chairperson of the institution' s governing board of action on its accreditation status. In a few days we will be sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Lawrence D. McHugh. The institution is free to release information about the evaluation and the Commission' s action to others, in accordance with Commission policy.

If you have any questions about the Commission' s action, please contact Charles M. Cook, Director of the Commission.

Sincerely,

  (signed)

Adrian Tinsley