XI....2020/06/25 · instructional design; (2) Create a portfolio of online undergraduate courses...

I.

II.

III.

IV.

A.

B.

V.

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

X.

University System of New Hampshire

Educational Excellence Committee

Thursday, June 25, 2020 9:45 AM (EDT)

Zoom Meeting - https://unh.zoom.us/j/95314302373

1 646 876 9923 (US toll) / Meeting ID: 953 1430 2373

If you need assistance or have trouble connecting please call 603-862-0918 or email

[email protected]

Zoom Meeting Informationhttps://unh.zoom.us/j/95314302373 --- or telephone: 1 646 876 9923 (US toll) / Meeting ID: 953 1430 2373

In Unlikely Event of Zoom FailureMeeting will reconvene by telephone: 800-505-4464 / Code: 630838#

Committee RosterM. Jacqueline Eastwood, Chair; Cathy J. Green, Vice Chair; Amy B. Begg; Jacob A. Bennett; Victoria Bergstrom; Frank

Edelblut; Cailee Griffin; Aura Huot; Shawn N. Jasper; Aaron M. Keaton; Tyler Minnich; Joseph D. Scala; Leo Shattuck;

Wallace R. Stevens; David A. Westover

Call to Order - 5 minutes

Chair's Welcome

Taking of Attendance

Consent AgendaMOVED, that the Educational Excellence Committee approve the consent agenda.

Meeting Minutes - Draft for Approval

Appointment with Tenure - UNH Recommendations for Approval

Promotion & Tenure - UNH, PSU, KSC Recommendations for Approval

Information: Academic Program Changes

Information: Academic Quality Metrics

University System Student Board (USSB) Update - Trustee Griffin - 20 minutes

CCSNH-USNH Synergy Recommendations: Update and Request for Approval - President

Rubinstein - 30 minutes

Chancellor's Update on Enrollments - Chancellor Leach - 20 minutesAttachments forthcoming

UNH Manchester and School of Law Update - Provost Jones - 10 minutes

Discussion: Plans for Fall - Trustees - 30 minutes

of 110

XI.

XII.

Other Business - 5 minutes

Adjourn

of 110

p. 1 of 2

EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE

APRIL 23, 2020

VIDEO CONFERENCE

MEETING MINUTES Draft for Approval

Participants

Committee members: M. Jacqueline Eastwood, chair; Cathy Green, vice chair; Amy Begg; Jacob Bennett; Victoria Bergstrom; Frank Edelblut; Cailee Griffin; Aura Huot; Shawn Jasper; Todd Leach; Tyler Minnich; Joseph Scala; Leo Shattuck; Wallace Stevens; David Westover

Other trustees: Donald Birx; James Burnett, III; James Dean, Jr.; George Hansel; Joseph Morone; Michael Pilot; Christopher Pope; Mark Rubinstein; Morgan Rutman; Representative Marjorie Smith; Melinda Treadwell

Other nonmembers: Marlin Collingwood; Robin DeRosa; Joseph Dwyer; Michael Fazi; Heidi Hedegard; Ockle Johnson; Wayne Jones; M.B. Lufkin; Tia Miller; Ann McClellan; Cathy Provencher; Ron Rodgers; Lisa Shawney; Scott Stanley

Call to Order

Committee Chair Eastwood called the meeting to order at 9:45 a.m. and called attention to information in the

materials regarding the state’s current employment needs. Meeting participants were recognized.

Consent Agenda

Moved by Chair Eastwood, duly seconded, and approved.

VOTED, that the Educational Excellence Committee approve the consent agenda containing the January 16, 2020, meeting minutes, the appointment of one professor with tenure at the University of New Hampshire, and the academic program change information.

Consent Items:

• Minutes January 16, 2020

• UNH Appointment with Tenure

Motion, on recommendation of President Dean, that the Educational Excellence Committee recommend for approval by the Board of Trustees the appointment of one professor with tenure at the University of New Hampshire, as presented in the supporting material.

• Information: Academic Degree Program Additions and Deletions

Addition: MS in Business Analytics Deletions: AS in Civil Technology

AS in Horticultural Technology AS in Culinary Arts and Nutrition AS in Integrated Agricultural Management

University System Student Board (USSB)

Trustees Scala and Griffin, on behalf of the USSB, talked about how students are coping with the mid-term shift to remote learning and social distancing and their expectations generally for fall. The USSB is working to address the potential impact of the pandemic on the onboarding process for next year’s members. Chair Eastwood thanked the students their insights and she suggested that the campuses utilize USSB members as a resource in the development of fall messaging.

of 110

USNH Educational Excellence Committee, April 23, 2020 p. 2 of 2

Draft for Approval

Spring Survey Results and Fall Admissions

The provosts provided context for fall admissions numbers, noting that it was relatively early in the process given the deposit deadline delay and public uncertainty around near-term plans. They provided an overview of findings from surveys designed to gauge the effects of the COVID-19 disruption on faculty and students’ abilities to teach and learn and their overall sense of well-being. Campuses are using the results to guide immediate actions to improve the distance education experience in the remainder of the spring term. The results will also be used to inform faculty development and training over the summer to improve remote instruction skills; for facilitating the readiness to stand up a higher quality distance learning model in the fall if conditions necessitate; and for developing the capacity to optimize a hybrid format that offers the most instructional options for students going forward. Observations included that an emergency remote instruction was not the same as intentionally designed online learning; that student perspectives were naturally reflective of overall frustration with the wide-ranging effects of the pandemic; and that undergraduate and graduate students may be experiencing the disruption in different ways.

Distance Learning

Chancellor Leach provided an overview of the systemwide plan for centralized online support and delivery and coordinated online content. Development of the plan was supported by the Administrative Board in response to the Board’s designation of online strategy as a high priority. Chancellor Leach presented four recommendations for the Board’s consideration: (1) Create New Hampshire Online, a centralized delivery hub that would operate like an in-house online program management (OPM) service by aligning reporting structures for key OPM functions, including call and digital communications center, CRM capabilities, common LMS, and systemwide instructional design; (2) Create a portfolio of online undergraduate courses addressing short-term utilization and sharing of existing online classes while protecting campus brands/identities; (3) Stand up hybrid/blended classroom capability for fall; and (4) Support summer faculty development to strengthen online and blended delivery, and develop a certification process for online facilitators of NH Online courses and robust instructional design support plans for master teachers. It was noted that the plan did not intend to replace the traditional residential model but to strengthen the system’s capacity to expand its market to reach nontraditional, largely adult learners. Further consideration of the plan is expected to occur at the full Board of Trustees meeting.

Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.

of 110

UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

BOARD OF TRUSTEES


Consent Agenda Item

June 25, 2020

University of New Hampshire

To: Educational Excellence Committee

Re: Faculty Appointment with Tenure

Consent Motion

MOVED, on recommendation of President Dean, that the Educational Excellence

Committee recommend for approval by the Board of Trustees the appointment of two

professors with tenure at the University of New Hampshire, as presented in the

supporting material.

Supporting Materials

President Dean’s letters of recommendation and the candidates’ curriculum vitae. The materials are confidential

and provided to trustees only. Until formally approved, the names of the candidates should not be publicly

disclosed.

Rationale for Proposed Action

Approval is sought pursuant to administrative personnel policy, USY.V.C.6, which states, “Board of Trustee review

and approval is required for initial faculty appointments that include tenure” (6.3.11.1).

Subsequent Review and Approval

Requires further approval by the full Board of Trustees.

Approved by: President Dean

Submitted by: USNH System Office

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR TRUSTEES ONLY

of 110


BOARD OF TRUSTEES


Consent Agenda Item

June 25, 2020

University of New Hampshire, Plymouth State University, Keene State College


Re: Faculty Promotion and Tenure

Consent Motion

MOVED, on recommendation of the respective presidents, that the Educational

Excellence Committee approve the promotion and tenure recommendations for the

University of New Hampshire, Keene State College, and Plymouth State University, as

presented in the supporting material.


Presidents’ letters of recommendation, The letters are confidential and provided to trustees only. Until formally

approved, the names of the individuals should not be publicly disclosed. (The credentials of the candidates are on

file at the respective institutions.)

Rationale for Proposed Action

Approval of the recommended action is sought of the Board of Trustees Educational Excellence Committee

pursuant to board policy, BOT.II.F:

The Board of Trustees of the University System of New Hampshire awards promotion and tenure on the

recommendation of a President (BOT.II.F.1.).

Institutional promotion and tenure recommendations are presented to the Educational Excellence

Committee as a consent agenda action item (BOT.II.F.3.1.).

Subsequent Review and Approval

Approval by the Educational Excellence Committee is final; no further approval is required.

Approved by: UNH, PSU, KSC Presidents


CONFIDENTIAL - FOR TRUSTEES ONLY

Page 41 of 110

hgh

Sticky Note

Pages 6-40 contain individual personal information and are removed from the public packet.

Promotion and Tenure Recommendations For AY 2021

Data Source: This report provides a statistical summary of the tenure status and demographic characteristics of full-time faculty at KSC, PSU and UNH as reported in the Fall 2019 IPEDS Human Resources Component and HR40090 Tenure Track Faulty.

UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Faculty Status by Rank and Tenure – PRE-Recommendations*

Faculty Status by Rank and Tenure – POST-Recommendations*

Faculty Promotions To** Category Eligible Applied Withdrew or

Denied Approved

Professor 186 20 3 17

Associate Professor 101 27 3 24

Total 287 47 6 41

Tenure 95 29 3 26

On Tenure Track Start Dates and Tenure Status**

Fiscal Year

New Tenure Track

Tenured Achieved

Recommended for Tenure

AY 2021

Left Prior to Tenure

Remaining & Eligible

2013 13 6 0 4 3

2014 26 15 3 6 2

2015 38 4 15 13 6

2016 53 5 4 8 36

2017 42 5 2 3 32

2018 33 4 2 3 24

2019 21 2 0 0 19

2020 13 0 0 0 13

Total 239 41 26 37 135 *UNH Main Campus Only; **Includes UNH Main Campus; UNH Manchester, and UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law

Professor Associate Professor Associate Assistant

TENURED ON TENURE TRACK

Men 117 89 1 3 58

Women 58 95 0 2 84

0

50

100

150

200

Emp

loye

e C

ou

nt

Professor Associate Professor Associate Assistant


Men 126 90 1 3 48

Women 64 101 0 1 73

0

50

100

150

200

250

Emp

loye

e C

ou

nt

Tenured 359 On Tenure Track 148

Total 507

Tenured 381 On Tenure Track 126 Total 507

Page 44 of 110

hgh

Sticky Note

Pages 42-43 involve personnel decisions and are removed from the pubic packet.



PLYMOUTH STATE UNIVERSITY

Faculty Status by Rank and Tenure – PRE-Recommendations

Faculty Status by Rank and Tenure - POST-Recommendations

Faculty Promotions To

Category Eligible Applied Withdrew or Denied

Approved

Professor 17 7 2 5

Associate Professor 8 10 2 8

Total 25 17 4 13

Tenure 9 11 2 9

On Tenure Track Start Dates and Tenure Status

Fiscal Year

New Tenure Track

Tenured Achieved


AY 2021



2015 10 5 3 1 1

2016 9 3 1 3 2

2017 9 0 2 2 5

2018 12 0 2 0 10

2019 5 0 1 0 4

2020 5 0 0 0 5

Total 50 8 9 6 27

Professor Associate Associate Assistant


Men 41 21 1 16

Women 28 26 2 17

0102030405060708090

Emp

loye

e C

ou

nt

Professor Associate Associate Associate


Men 43 24 1 11

Women 31 27 1 14

01020304050607080

Emp

loye

e C

ou

nt



Page 47 of 110

hgh

Sticky Note

Pages 44-46 involve personnel decisions and are removed from the pubic packet.



KEENE STATE COLLEGE

Faculty Status by Rank and Tenure – PRE-Recommendations

Faculty Status by Rank and Tenure - POST-Recommendations

Faculty Promotions To

Category Eligible Applied Approved

Professor 39 7 7

Associate Professor 11 5 5

Total 50 12 12

Tenure 5 5 5

On Tenure Track Start Dates and Tenure Status

Fiscal Year

New Tenure Track

Tenured Achieved To Date


AY 2021



2015 8 1 3 4 0

2016 11 3 1 4 3

2017 11 0 1 0 10

2018 7 0 0 1 6

2019 6 0 0 1 5

2020 7 0 0 0 7

Total 50 4 5 10 31

Professor Associate Assistant Associate Assistant


Men 36 31 1 2 12

Women 35 26 1 3 19

0102030405060708090

Emp

loye

e C

ou

nt

Professor Associate Assistant Associate Assistant


Men 41 28 1 2 10

Women 37 27 1 3 16

0102030405060708090

Emp

loye

e C

ou

nt



Page 49 of 110

hgh

Sticky Note

Page 45 involves personnel decisions and is removed from the pubic packet.


BOARD OF TRUSTEES


Information

June 25, 2020

University System of New Hampshire, Plymouth State University, Keene State College


Re: Academic Program Changes


UNH, PSU, and KSC academic program change information

Summary / Rationale for Submission

The attached information identifies programming changes under consideration, including, among other types of

changes, the following degree program additions and deletions:

PSU Additions: EdS School-Psychology

BA & BS Physics

MS Climate Studies

Deletions: BS Early Childhood Education

BS Math: Middle School Teacher Cert 5-8

BS Math: Secondary Teacher Cert 7-12

MEd in Online Instructional Design

MS Biology

MA in Historic Preservation

MEd in Heritage Studies

UNH Additions: BS Engineering Technology

BS Mechanical Technology

MS & Graduate Certificate Health Data Science

MS Molecular and Cellular Biotechnology

MS Intelligence

MS Global Conflict Studies

MS Biotechnology: Industrial & Biomedical Sciences

This information is presented to the Educational Excellence Committee pursuant to USNH Board of Trustees

Academic Program Planning and Review policy, BOT.II.G.4:

Prior to taking action a President shall inform the Educational Excellence Committee of his or her plans

to add or delete degree programs (i.e., degrees and majors). After implementing any such change a

President shall inform the Committee of the completed action. Such informational reports ordinarily

shall be part of the agenda for a regularly scheduled Committee meeting.

Approved by: UNH, PSU, KSC Presidents


KSC Additions: BS & BA Neuroscience

BA & BS Physics

MS Public Health Nutrition

BS Construction Management

BA Legal Studies

BS STEM

BS Sustainability

Deletions: BS Math-Physics

Page 50 of 110

of 110

Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

207 Thompson Hall 105 Main Street Durham, NH 03824-3547

V: 603.862.3290 F: 603.862.4741 TTY: 7.7.7 (Relay NH)

To : Educational Excellence Committee

From : Wayne E. Jones Jr. Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

Date : May 5, 2020

Subject : Informational Items

Copy : Andrew Colby, Registrar Joel Carstens, Financial Aid Pelema Ellis, Enrollment Management Erika Mantz, Communications and Public Affairs Robert McGann, Admissions Judy Muller, Business Services P. T. Vasudevan, Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Terri Winters, Assistant Vice Provost, Academic Technology Jackie Snow, Center for DATA Cari Moorhead, Graduate School, Dean Michael Decelle, Manchester Michael Ferrara, College of Health and Human Services Deborah Merrill-Sands, Paul College of Business and Economics Jon Wraith, College of Life Sciences and Agriculture

The University of New Hampshire has approved the following:

Effective: Fall 2020

• Expansion of Engineering Technology Programs to 4-year programso BS in Engineering Technologyo BS in Mechanical Technology

• New Minor Lifetime Activity Programming and Leadership – CHHS• New Minor Physical Education Teaching – CHHS• Delete/Close Minor Deaf and Hard of Hearing – CHHS• M.S. and Graduate Certificate Health Data Science – CHHS/Grad• New Minor Equine Assisted Activities and Therapies (EAAT) - COLSA• M.S. in Molecular and Cellular Biotechnology – COLSA/Grad

Page 54 of 110

May 5, 2020 Page 2

• Master of Science in Nursing – change of degree titles to - CHHSo Master of Science in Nursing: Clinical Nurse Leadero Master of Science in Nursing: Evidence-Based Practice

• New Option Outdoor Leadership and Management as a result of an active merger of RecreationManagement and Policy and Outdoor Leadership and Education Programs - CHHS

• Department of Business, Politics, and Security Studies split into two independent departmentsas follows - UNHM

o Department of Business and Public Affairs – department will host the Business,Accounting and PSNL programs

o Department of Security Studies – department will host the HLS and CPRM programs.Two new online professional master’s programs: Intelligence Global Conflict Studies

• M.S. in Biotechnology: Industrial and Biomedical Sciences – UNHM

These proposals have been approved at the appropriate levels within the University.

Approved By:

_____________________________ James W. Dean Jr, President

Page 55 of 110

Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

207 Thompson Hall 105 Main Street Durham, NH 03824-3547

V: 603.862.3290 F: 603.862.4741 TTY: 7.7.7 (Relay NH)

To : Educational Excellence Committee

From : Wayne E. Jones Jr. Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

Date : May 26, 2020

Subject : Informational Items

Copy : Andrew Colby, Registrar Joel Carstens, Financial Aid Pelema Ellis, Enrollment Management Erika Mantz, Communications and Public Affairs Robert McGann, Admissions Judy Muller, Business Services P. T. Vasudevan, Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Terri Winters, Assistant Vice Provost, Academic Technology Anne Shattuck, Institutional Research and Assessment Jackie Snow, Center for DATA Michele Dillion, College of Liberal Arts Cari Moorhead, Graduate School Charles Zercher, College of Engineering and Physical Sciences Harlan Spence, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space Diane Foster, School of Marine Science and Ocean Engineering

The University of New Hampshire has approved the following:

Effective: Spring 2019

• New Minor Marine Policy – EOS, MSOE

Effective: Fall 2020 • New Option Biomedical Engineering in Electrical and Computer Engineering - CEPS• Delete three options in Physics – CEPS

o Astronomy, Chemical Physics , Material Science• New Post-Masters Certificate Degree – Graduate• New minor Community Leadership - Manchester• New Cognate in Art History, Design, and Computer Science - COLA

These proposals have been approved at the appropriate levels within the University.

Approved By:

_____________________________ James W. Dean Jr, President

Page 56 of 110


BOARD OF TRUSTEES


Information

June 25, 2020

University System of New Hampshire


Re: Academic Quality Metrics FY20


Annual Academic Quality Metrics report

Summary / Rationale for Submission

The academic quality metrics are presented to the Educational Excellence Committee pursuant to USNH Board

of Trustees Academic Program Planning and Review policy, BOT.II.G, by which the Educational Excellence

Committee shall,

“…Require the Chancellor to coordinate a process whereby the Presidents propose to the Committee a set

of appropriate metrics and targets aimed at assuring the education provided by each institution, and USNH

as a whole, meets reasonable quality expectations” (BOT.II.G.3.3)”

Report contents:

Retention & Completion Metrics

1-Year Retention Rates (UG)

4-Year Graduation Rates (UG)

6-Year Graduation Rates (UG)

4-Year Persistence & Completion Rates (GR)

Postgraduation Employment Metrics

Employment Rates (UG & GR)

Loan Default Rates (All Students)

Student Satisfaction & Engagement Metrics (UG & GR)

Student Learning Outcomes Metrics

Professional Exam Pass Rates (UG & GR)

Learning Outcomes Assessment (UG)

Academic Program Quality – Approvals and Accreditations

Submitted by: USNH System Office/hgh

Page 57 of 110

USNH ACADEMIC QUALITY METRICS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE, JUNE 25, 2020

Retention and Completion

1-YEAR RETENTION RATE

UNH PSU KSC GSC Representative Cohort

Chart scale varies, range is uniform

Notes

ӿ Peer average not available ӿ ӿ USNH institution data not available

At GSC, first-time, full-time students represent a small percentage (approximately 8%) of total bachelor’s enrollment. Consistent with USNWR Survey for Online Programs methodology for evaluation of nontraditional student retention and graduation rates, GSC also provides a representative cohort which includes all bachelor’s seeking students (e.g., transfers, part-time, etc.). The representative retention rates include students with a first enrollment in a given fiscal year cohort who subsequently reenrolled in at least one term within the next 12 months (4 terms).

Manchester campus is not included in UNH Durham rate.

Peer rate = average rate of comparator group institutions for first-time, full-time, freshman bachelor's degree candidate cohort; not available for GSC

Sources: UNH, PSU, KSC Institutional Research; GSC Academic Affairs; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS

GSC

All Pell 1st Gen Peer All Pell 1st Gen Peer All Pell 1st Gen Peer All Pell 1st Gen

2015 85% 81% 80% 90% 76% 74% 71% 79% 73% 70% 70% 77% 80% 78% ӿ ӿ

2016 86% 84% 82% 89% 70% 69% 69% 79% 75% 72% 74% 76% 74% 76% ӿ ӿ

2017 86% 86% 83% 89% 68% 61% 62% 78% 71% 70% 70% 77% 78% 76% ӿ ӿ

2018 86% 83% 81% 89% 69% 62% 65% 78% 72% 65% 68% 77% 75% 72% ӿ ӿ

2019 86% 83% 83% ӿ 67% 63% 67% ӿ 76% 72% 72% ӿ 77% 75% ӿ ӿ

Targets: "All"

2021 90% 73% 75% 83%

2018 88% 70% 75% 75%

2015 87% 76% 80% 82%

Representative FY Cohort Cohort

Year 2

Fall

UNH PSU KSC

Bachelor's Degree Candidates – Fall First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

Fall 15 16 17 18 19

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

Fall 15 16 17 18 19

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

Fall 15 16 17 18 19

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

FY15 16 17 18 1960%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

2014 15 16 17 18

All Pell 1st Gen Peer All

✓

✓

Page 58 of 110



4-YEAR GRADUATION RATE



Notes


At GSC, first-time, full-time students represent a small percentage (approximately 8%) of total bachelor’s enrollment. Consistent with USNWR Survey for Online Programs methodology for evaluation of nontraditional student retention and graduation rates, GSC also provides a representative cohort which includes all bachelor’s seeking students (e.g., transfers, part-time, etc.). The 4-year and 6-year graduation rates include those students from the cohort who have graduated by the end of the last term in the fourth or sixth (fiscal) year.




GSC


2015 68% 61% 62% 65% 42% 42% 42% 39% 53% 50% 52% 45% 38% 31% ӿ ӿ

2016 68% 63% 64% 66% 41% 40% 45% 42% 51% 41% 48% 47% 39% 33% ӿ ӿ

2017 69% 62% 64% ӿ 45% 39% 38% ӿ 55% 48% 54% ӿ 32% 28% ӿ ӿ

2018 68% 61% 62% ӿ 48% 44% 42% ӿ 53% 46% 49% ӿ 40% 35% ӿ ӿ

2019 69% 66% 63% ӿ 44% 37% 43% ӿ 54% 47% 49% ӿ 43% 36% ӿ ӿ

Targets: "All "

2020 71% 46% 54% 45%

2015 68% 46% 54% 50%

Representative FY Cohort Cohort

Year 4

FY

UNH PSU KSC

Bachelor's Degree Candidates – First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

FY15 16 17 18 19

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

FY15 16 17 18 19

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

FY15 16 17 18 19

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

FY15 16 17 18 1960%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

2014 15 16 17 18


✓

Page 59 of 110



6-YEAR GRADUATION RATE



Notes


At GSC, first-time, full-time students represent a small percentage (approximately 8%) of total bachelor’s enrollment. Consistent with USNWR Survey for Online Programs methodology for evaluation of nontraditional student retention and graduation rates, GSC also provides a representative cohort which includes all bachelor’s seeking students (e.g., transfers, part-time, etc.). The 4-year and 6-year graduation rates include those students from the cohort who have graduated by the end of the last term in the fourth or sixth (fiscal) year.




GSC


2015 79% 75% 75% 77% 58% 51% 55% 61% 63% 59% 60% 60% 45% 39% ӿ ӿ

2016 79% 72% 73% 78% 54% 49% 53% 61% 63% 57% 57% 60% 49% 44% ӿ ӿ

2017 77% 71% 71% 78% 54% 53% 56% 61% 62% 59% 60% 59% 46% 40% ӿ ӿ

2018 77% 73% 73% 78% 53% 50% 57% 62% 60% 52% 57% 60% 44% 37% ӿ ӿ

2019 77% 73% 72% ӿ 54% 44% 46% ӿ 63% 56% 60% ӿ 39% 33% ӿ ӿ

Targets: "All "

2020 80% 60% 65% 55%

2015 77% 58% 65% 65%

Bachelor's Degree Candidates – First-Time, Full-Time FreshmenCohort

Year 6

FY

Representative FY Cohort

UNH PSU KSC

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

FY 15 16 17 18 19

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

FY 15 16 17 18 19

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

FY 15 16 17 18 19

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

FY15 16 17 18 1960%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

2014 15 16 17 18


✓ ✓

Page 60 of 110


Retention and Completion GRADUATE STUDENT PERSISTENCE AND COMPLETION

UNH PSU KSC GSC

Notes

* Newly matriculated full- and part-time master’s degree candidates, by year of matriculation. PSU additionally includes EdD and certificates of advanced graduate study (CAGS). GSC rates as of June 1.

Sources: PSU and KSC Institutional Research; GSC Academic Affairs; UNH Graduate School

Master's Degree Candidates *

UNH PSU KSC GSC

Status

# in

cohort Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

# in


# in


# in


2012 Completion 785 54% 76% 80% 445 12% 40% 63% 76 30% 47% 54% 61 56% 75% 80%

Continuation 40% 14% 10% 81% 43% 16% 66% 20% 5% 38% 18% 5%

Attrition 6% 10% 10% 7% 17% 21% 4% 33% 41% 6% 7% 15%

2013 Completion 731 58% 73% 78% 461 13% 38% 61% 45 36% 53% 73% 62 52% 65% 68%

Continuation 36% 19% 12% 78% 41% 10% 44% 27% 4% 27% 13% 6%

Attrition 6% 8% 10% 9% 21% 29% 20% 20% 22% 21% 22% 26%

2014 Completion 783 57% 76% 80% 440 17% 52% 63% 44 39% 75% 81% 72 39% 60% 64%

Continuation 35% 13% 8% 73% 25% 10% 48% 14% 5% 36% 10% 3%

Attrition 8% 11% 12% 10% 23% 27% 13% 11% 14% 25% 30% 33%

2015 Completion 784 53% 75% 80% 406 29% 47% 61% 56 36% 70% 86% 61 38% 54% 57%

Continuation 39% 14% 8% 51% 27% 9% 54% 20% 4% 25% 9% 7%

Attrition 8% 11% 12% 20% 26% 30% 11% 11% 11% 37% 37% 36%

2016 Completion 798 53% 75% 82% 351 30% 52% 66% 50 26% 62% 74% 90 49% 64% 72%

Continuation 39% 15% 7% 52% 30% 10% 62% 26% 16% 24% 9% 1%

Attrition 8% 10% 11% 18% 19% 24% 12% 12% 10% 27% 27% 27%

Completion 54% 74% — 26% 56% — 34% 68% — 38% 55% —

Continuation 40% 16% — 62% 22% — 46% 12% — 32% 10% —

Attrition 6% 10% — 12% 22% — 20% 20% — 30% 35% —

Completion 53% — — 34% — — 61% — — 53% — —

Continuation 41% — — 41% — — 27% — — 25% — —

Attrition 6% — — 25% — — 12% — — 22% — —

77

2017768

2018861 285 33

FY

Entering

Cohort

295 41 69

Year 4: 65% Completion Year 4: 75% Completion Year 4: 75% Completion

Targets: 2013 Cohort

Year 4: 80% Completion Year 2: 15% Attrition Max Year 2: 12% Attrition Max Year 2: 30% Attrition Max

Year 4: 64% Completion Year 2: 45% Continuation Year 4: 70% Completion

Targets: 2020 Cohort

Year 4: 80% Completion Year 2: 15% Attrition Max Year 2: 15% Attrition Max Year 2: 5% Attrition Max

20

12 c

oh

ort

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

20

12 c

oh

ort

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

20

12 c

oh

ort

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

20

12 c

oh

ort

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0%

50%

100%

Attrition Continuation CompletionYear 4 Status:

✓

Page 61 of 110


Post-graduation Employment UNDERGRADUATE

UNH PSU KSC GSC

Notes

* PSU, KSC, GSC rates reflect survey responses. UNH reflects knowledge rates. Knowledge rates are the percentages of graduates for whom first-destination outcomes are known based on verifiable sources, including but not limited to survey results.

For cohort size, GSC reports 5 cohorts combined, 1-5 years post-graduation; year-to-year results overlap graduating classes. UNH reports ~ 5-6 months post-graduation. KSC and PSU report 1 year post-graduation.

Sources: UNH, PSU, KSC Institutional Research; GSC Academic Affairs

Year

Graduated

Employed

or Enrolled

in Graduate

Education Employed

Of Those

Employed

− in Field of

Study

Survey

Response

Rate

UNH 2019 96% 78% 88% 40% 40%

2018 95% 74% 88% 45% 45%

2017 92% 76% 87% 37% 37%

2016 93% 80% 76% 34% 34%

PSU 2019 94% 90% 81% 15% 15%

2018 96% 91% 81% 14% 14%

2017 96% 95% 79% 16% 16%

2016 96% 91% 65% 15% 17%

2015 97% 91% 75% 28% 29%

KSC 2018 98% 86% 86% 14% 25%

2017 98% 90% 87% 14% 22%

2016 94% 88% 76% 19% 30%

2015 95% 89% 75% 33% 53%

2014 97% 92% 77% 17% 34%

GSC 2015-2019 96% 94% n/a 6% 6%

2014-2018 91% 90% 72% 31% 31%

2013-2017 92% 90% 76% 25% 25%

2012-2016 91% 89% 84% 22% 22%

2011-2015 94% 93% 57% 30% 30%

Survey

Respondents

as Percent of

Graduated

Class

Survey / Knowledge Rate *

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AY16 17 18 19

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AY15 16 17 18 19

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AY14 15 16 17 18

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AY11-15 12-16 13-17 14-18 15-19

50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%

100%

2011-15 12-16 13-17 14-18

Employed or Enrolled in Graduate Education

Employed

Of Those Employed − in Field of Study

50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%

100%

2011-15 12-16 13-17 14-18

Employed or Enrolled in Graduate Education

Employed

Of Those Employed − in Field of Study

Page 62 of 110


Post-graduation Employment GRADUATE

Metric reported every three years; next update 2020 data in 2021 report

UNH PSU KSC GSC

Notes

* PSU, KSC, GSC rates reflect survey responses. UNH reflects knowledge rates. Knowledge rates are the percentages of graduates for whom first-destination outcomes are known based on verifiable sources, including but not limited to survey results.

Survey results reported every three years.

PSU alumni include completers of CAGS and EdD (certificate of advanced graduate studies, doctor of education).


Year(s)

Graduated

Number

of Years

Postgrad

Employed

or Enrolled

in Graduate

Education Employed

Degree

Advanced

My Career

Goals

Respondents

as Percent of

Graduated

Class

Knowledge

/ Survey

Response

Rate

UNH 2017 1 95% 87% 88% 40% 47%

PSU 2013-2017 1–5 93% 97% na 15% 15%

2010-2014 1–5 96% 94% 80% 26% 37%

KSC 2013-2017 1–5 94% 94% 93% 24% 24%

2010-2014 1–5 94% 94% 92% 27% 29%

GSC 2013-2017 1–5 97% 97% 90% 37% 37%

2013-2014 1–2 95% 95% 80% 65% 65%

Survey / Knowledge Rates *

Master’s Program Alumni

2017

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Empl'd/Enrolled

Empl'd Adv'd Career

Empl'd/Enrolled

Empl'd

Survey Rates Knowledge Rates

2010–2014

2013–2017

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Empl'd/Enrolled

Empl'd Adv'd Career

2010–2014

2013–2017

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Empl'd/Enrolled

Empl'd Adv'd Career

2010–2014

2013–2017

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Empl'd/Enrolled

Empl'd Adv'd Career

Page 63 of 110


Post-graduation Employment STUDENT LOAN 3-YEAR DEFAULT RATE


Notes

Peer rate = average rate of comparator group institutions

Source: US Department of Education and Federal Student Aid, National Student Loan Data System

Cohort

Repayment

3-Year Mark UNH Peer PSU Peer KSC Peer GSC Peer

FY15 2.0% 3.0% 5.0% 4.9% 4.8% 5.4% 11.4% 7.8%

FY16 2.1% 2.7% 3.5% 4.8% 3.9% 5.5% 14.6% 8.6%

FY17 2.2% 2.9% 5.0% 5.1% 3.9% 5.3% 12.3% 9.5%

FY18 2.3% 3.0% 4.3% 5.1% 4.6% 5.2% 11.3% 8.8%

FY19 2.2% 2.9% 4.9% 5.8% 3.7% 5.6% 9.7% 8.6%

Target Cap

FY20 2.6% 5.2% 3.9% 11.5%

FY15 2.5% 5.0% 5.2% 10.0%

0.0%

2.5%

5.0%

7.5%

10.0%

FY15 16 17 18 19

UNH Peer

0.0%

2.5%

5.0%

7.5%

10.0%

FY15 16 17 18 19

PSU Peer

0.0%

2.5%

5.0%

7.5%

10.0%

FY15 16 17 18 19

KSC Peer

5.0%

7.5%

10.0%

12.5%

15.0%

FY15 16 17 18 19

GSC Peer

✓ ✓ ✓

Page 64 of 110


Student Engagement and Satisfaction UNDERGRADUATE

Due to the cost of survey administration, results are reported by institution on a rotating basis.

ATTACHED: KSC National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) results

GSC Priority Survey for Online Learners results

GRADUATE

Metric reported every three years; next update 2020 data in 2021 report

Notes

* PSU, KSC, GSC rates reflect survey responses. UNH reflects knowledge rates. Knowledge rates are the percentages of graduates for whom satisfaction rates are based on verifiable sources, including but not limited to survey results.

Survey results reported every three years.

PSU alumni include completers of CAGS and EdD (certificate of advanced graduate studies, doctor of education).


Year(s)

Graduated

Number

of Years

Postgrad

Percent of

Respondents

Who Were

Satisfied

Respondents

as Percent of

Graduated

Class

Knowledge

/ Survey

Response

Rate

UNH 2017 1 90% 40% 47%

PSU 2013-2017 1–5 98% 26% 26%

2010-2014 1–5 94% 26% 36%

KSC 2013-2017 1–5 76% 24% 24%

2010-2014 1–5 96% 27% 29%

GSC 2013-2017 1–5 100% 37% 37%

2013-2014 1–2 95% 66% 66%

Master’s Program Alumni

Satisfaction Rates

20

17

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

20

17

20

10–2

014

20

17

20

10–2

014

20

17

20

10–2

014

UNH PSU KSC GSC

Page 65 of 110

Academic Challenge: First-year students

Mean Comparisons

Engagement Indicator

Higher-Order Learning *** ***

Reflective & Integrative Learning *** ***

Learning Strategies *** *** ***

Quantitative Reasoning

Score Distributions

Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores.

The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution’s sample sizes.

-.08Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard

deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (2-tailed).

Higher-Order Learning Reflective & Integrative Learning

Quantitative ReasoningLearning Strategies

26.6 26.7 -.01 27.1 -.04 27.8

-.22

33.0 36.7 -.28 37.4 -.32 38.1 -.37

32.6 32.8 -.02 35.5 -.25 35.2

Effect

size

34.2 35.5 -.11 37.5 -.27 38.0 -.29

Mean Mean

Effect

size Mean

Effect

size Mean

Challenging intellectual and creative work is central to student learning and collegiate quality. Colleges and universities promote

student learning by challenging and supporting them to engage in various forms of deep learning. Four Engagement Indicators are

part of this theme: Higher-Order Learning, Reflective & Integrative Learning, Learning Strategies, and Quantitative Reasoning.

Below and on the next page are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.

KSCYour first-year students compared with

Regional Comparators IPEDS Custom Comps NSSE 2018 & 2019

NSSE 2019 Engagement IndicatorsAcademic Challenge

Keene State College

0

15

30

45

60

KSC RegionalComparators

IPEDS CustomComps

NSSE 2018 & 2019

0

15

30

45

60


IPEDS CustomComps

NSSE 2018 & 2019

0

15

30

45

60


IPEDS CustomComps

NSSE 2018 & 2019

0

15

30

45

60


IPEDS CustomComps

NSSE 2018 & 2019

Page 66 of 110

Academic Challenge: First-year students (continued)

Performance on Indicator Items

Higher-Order Learning

%

4b. 63

4c. 57

4d. 64

4e. 58

Reflective & Integrative Learning

2a. 46

2b. 47

41

2d. 53

64

2f. 65

2g. 67

Learning Strategies

9a. 64

9b. 53

9c. 51

Quantitative Reasoning

42

40

6c. 35

Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile included in your

Institutional Report and available on the NSSE website.

a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage – Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not

display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.

6b.Used numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue (unemployment,

climate change, public health, etc.)

+2 -3 -4

6a.Reached conclusions based on your own analysis of numerical information (numbers,

graphs, statistics, etc.)-7 -7 -10

+3 +1 +0

Evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information

Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…


-8 -9 -12

-9 -13 -11

-12 -10 -13

Identified key information from reading assignments

Reviewed your notes after class

Summarized what you learned in class or from course materials

-6 -11 -11

2e.Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from his

or her perspective

+4 -1 -2Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept

Connected ideas from your courses to your prior experiences and knowledge

-1 -7 -6

2c.Included diverse perspectives (political, religious, racial/ethnic, gender, etc.) in course

discussions or assignments

+1 -6 -5

-4 -14 -10

-5 -12 -11

Connected your learning to societal problems or issues

Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue

Applying facts, theories, or methods to practical problems or new situations

Analyzing an idea, experience, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts

Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source

-0 -7 -6


-6 -11 -11Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information

Combined ideas from different courses when completing assignments

-2 -8 -6

-1 -5 -8

-13 -13-6

Regional

Comparators

IPEDS Custom

Comps

NSSE 2018 &

2019

Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much coursework emphasized…

NSSE 2019 Engagement IndicatorsAcademic Challenge

Keene State College

The table below displays how your students responded to each EI item, and the difference, in percentage points, between your

students and those of your comparison group. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is from that of the

comparison group. Dark red bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group.

Percentage point difference a between your FY students and

KSC

2 • NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS Page 67 of 110

Priority Survey for Online Learners - 2019 This report provides a look at the percentage of responses that indicated an answer of 6 or 7 to the items in the survey: 6 is considered "important" or "satisfied" and 7 is considered "very important" or "very satisfied." Survey sent to GSC students who had completed at least one course in the past four terms. 672 total students responded (27%). The comparator group includes approximately 119K students from 175 institutions. Key: Import = Importance. Sat = Satisfaction. Gap is the difference between importance and satisfaction. Diff in Sat is the difference between satisfaction at GSC vs. the comparator group. A positive number indicates that GSC students are more satisfied than the comparator group. GSC Total- UG and GRAD

(n=672) Total Comparator Group (n=119,112)

GSC UG Only (n=558)

Item Import Sat Gap Diff in Sat

Import Sat Gap Import Sat Gap Diff in Sat

1. This institution has a good reputation.

88% 76% 6% 1% 88% 75% 13% 83% 77% 5% 2%

2. My program advisor is accessible by telephone and e-mail.

92% 88% 4% 10% 89% 78% 11% 92% 89% 3% 11%

3. Instructional materials are appropriate for program content.

93% 75% 18% 1% 94% 74% 20% 92% 75% 17% 1%

4. Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress.

92% 68% 24% -3% 93% 71% 22% 91% 68% 24% -3%

5. My program advisor helps me work toward career goals.

85% 75% 10% 9% 83% 66% 17% 86% 77% 9% 11%

6. Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment.

90% 72% 18% 4% 91% 68% 23% 91% 73% 18% 5%

7. Program requirements are clear and reasonable.

93% 76% 17% 1% 93% 75% 18% 93% 76% 16% 1%

8. Student-to-student collaborations are valuable to me.

42% 56% -14% 0% 49% 56% -7% 42% 56% -14% 0%

9. Adequate financial aid is available.

86% 75% 11% 7% 87% 68% 19% 87% 76% 11% 8%

10. This institution responds quickly when I request information.

93% 86% 7% 10% 92% 76% 16% 94% 87% 7% 11%

11. Student assignments are clearly defined in the syllabus.

94% 71% 23% -4% 94% 75% 19% 94% 72% 22% -3%

12. There are sufficient offerings within my program of study.

91% 74% 17% 0% 91% 74% 17% 91% 74% 17% 0%

13. The frequency of student and instructor interactions is adequate.

87% 72% 15% 0% 86% 72% 14% 88% 72% 16% 0%

14. I receive timely information on the availability of financial aid.

86% 79% 7% 8% 87% 71% 16% 87% 80% 8% 9%

15. Channels are available for providing timely responses to student complaints.

83% 64% 19% -1% 83% 65% 18% 83% 65% 18% 0%

16. Appropriate technical assistance is readily available.

86% 80% 6% 1% 89% 79% 10% 86% 81% 4% 2%

17. Assessment and evaluation procedures are clear and reasonable.

90% 78% 12% 1% 91% 77% 14% 90% 79% 11% 2%

18. Registration for online courses is convenient.

92% 88% 4% 2% 94% 86% 8% 93% 89% 3% 3%

Page 68 of 110

19. Online career services are available.

76% 72% 4% 4% 78% 68% 10% 78% 73% 5% 5%

20. The quality of online instruction is excellent.

95% 70% 25% 0% 94% 70% 24% 95% 71% 24% 1%

21. Adequate online library resources are provided.

89% 80% 9% 0% 90% 80% 10% 88% 80% 8% 0%

22. I am aware of whom to contact for questions about programs and services.

89% 79% 10% 5% 89% 74% 15% 90% 80% 9% 6%

23. Billing and payment procedures are convenient for me.

90% 84% 6% 3% 90% 81% 9% 89% 83% 6% 2%

24. Tutoring services are readily available for online courses.

75% 65% 10% -2% 78% 67% 11% 76% 67% 10% 0%

25. Faculty are responsive to student needs.

95% 78% 17% 3% 94% 75% 19% 95% 78% 16% 3%

26. The bookstore provides timely service to students.

84% 76% 8% -2% 84% 78% 6% 85% 77% 7% -1%

*Campus items below are specific to GSC and therefore have no comparator data. GSC Total- UG and GRAD Total Comparator Group GSC UG Only

Import Sat Gap Import Sat Gap 27. Campus item*: I am able to find the information and resources that I need on the College’s main websites.

90% 78% 12% 90% 79% 11%

28. Campus item: Credit for learning gained from life/work experience as a factor to enroll.

86% 65% 21% 87% 66% 20%

29. Campus item: The content of the courses within my major is valuable.

95% 78% 17% 95% 78% 17%

30. Campus item: My studies are closely related to my life and work goals.

93% 81% 12% 92% 80% 12%

31. Campus item: I am evaluated on the knowledge and skills I’ll need in my career.

91% 73% 18% 91% 72% 18%

32. Campus item: This institution initiates many opportunities for me to connect with adult learners.

72% 67% 5% 72% 67% 4%

33. Campus item: My experience at GSC has improved my abilities in communication.

81% 79% 2% 82% 81% 1%

34. Campus item: My experience at GSC has improved my abilities to think critically and comprehensively.

88% 81% 7% 88% 82% 6%

35. Campus item: My experience at GSC has improved my ability to apply knowledge to workplace and community.

90% 82% 8% 90% 82% 7%

36. Campus item: My experience at GSC has helped me gain specialized knowledge.

90% 78% 12% 89% 78% 12%

For the items below, Diff in import is difference in importance between GSC and comparators. A positive number indicates GSC students find the item more important than comparators. GSC Total- UG and GRAD (n=672) Total Comparator Group GSC UG Only (n=558) Information sources in decision to enroll Percent Rated Highly Diff in

import Percent Rated Highly Percent Rated Highly Diff in

import 37. Source of information: Catalog and brochures (printed)

59% 4% 55% 61% 6%

38. Source of information: Catalog (online)

84% 2% 82% 84% 2%

39. Source of information: College representatives

69% 1% 68% 71% 3%

40. Source of information: Web site 91% 2% 89% 92% 3%

Page 69 of 110

41. Source of information: Advertisements

36% -8% 44% 37% -7%

42. Source of information: Recommendation from instructor or program advisor

76% -1% 77% 7% 0%

43. Source of information: Contact with current students and / or recent graduates of the program

48% -12% 60% 50% -10%

GSC Total- UG and GRAD Total Comparator Group GSC UG Only Factors in decision to enroll Percent Rated Highly Diff in

import Percent Rated Highly Percent Rated Highly Diff in

import 44. Factor to enroll: Ability to transfer credits

89% 6% 83% 92% 9%

45. Factor to enroll: Cost

87% 3% 84% 88% 4%

46. Factor to enroll: Financial assistance available

80% -3% 83% 81% -2%

47. Factor to enroll: Future employment opportunities

80% -1% 81% 81% 0%

48. Factor to enroll: Reputation of institution

75% -9% 84% 76% -8%

49. Factor to enroll: Work schedule 94% 3% 91% 93% 2% 50. Factor to enroll: Flexible pacing for completing a program

93% 2% 91% 93% 2%

51. Factor to enroll: Convenience

96% 2% 94% 96% 2%

52. Factor to enroll: Distance from campus

58% -4% 62% 60% -2%

53. Factor to enroll: Program requirements

82% -4% 86% 85% -1%

54. Factor to enroll: Recommendations from employer

55% -4% 59% 54% -5%

GSC Total- UG and GRAD Total Comparator Group GSC UG Only Summary Items Percent Rated Highly Gap Percent Rated Highly Percent Rated Highly Gap So far, how has your college experience met your expectations?

42% 2% 40% 42% 2%

*This item indicates percentage of respondents who answered, “Quite a bit better than I expected,” or “Much better than expected.” Rate your overall satisfaction with your experience here thus far.

76% 4% 72% 77% 5%

*This item indicates percentage of respondents who answered, “Satisfied,” or “Very satisfied.” All in all, if you had to do it over again, would you enroll here again?

79% 5% 74% 80% 6%

*This item indicates percentage of respondents who answered, “Probably yes,” or “Definitely yes.”

Page 70 of 110


Student Learning Outcomes PROFESSIONAL EXAM PASS RATES

All rates reflect first exam attempt. Caution is advised when interpreting USNH rates as many are based on small numbers of test takers.

— Not available or not applicable for given year. (Rates for Recreation Management & Policy have a one-year lag.) *Two test takers, neither passed. **CSD pass rate may not include all students who took the exam this year due to COVID-19 reporting delay. Education rates: All program completer's first PRAXIS II exam, summary pass rate as calculated by ETS for Title II. | Family Studies rates: PRAXIS. Nursing rates: NCLEX (National Council Licensing Exam) as reported by NH Board of Nursing. CHHS: College of Health & Human Services | COLA: College of Liberal Arts | SOL: School of Law | Source: Campus Academic Affairs

Comparison rates are national except for Education and Law, which compare to NH average.

Note: Charts omitted for UNH Family Studies due to gaps in data and Communications Sciences & Disorders for which UNH pass rates are 100% in each year.

US Rate US Rate US Rate US Rate

NH Rate

(Ed & Law)

NH Rate

(Ed & Law)

NH Rate

(Ed & Law)

NH Rate

(Ed & Law)

UNH CHHS: Athletic Training/Kinesiology (BS) 55 81 79 85 50 81 69 77

CHHS: Communications Sciences & Disorders 100 90 100 85 100 82 100** 88

CHHS: Family Studies (Marriage/Family Therapy) 100 — — — 100 90 100 90

CHHS: Nursing (BS) 93 85 100 87 98 88 98 88

CHHS: Nursing (Direct Entry Master’s) 95 85 94 87 100 92 100 88

CHHS: Occupational Therapy 97 87 97 98 98 71 98 73

CHHS: Recreation Management & Policy 98 85 98 84 95 87 — —

COLA: Education 91 83 91 84 85 88 92 89

SOL: Law (American Bar Association) 74 73 92 76 84 56 89 68

PSU Athletic Training (BS) 0 * 81 83 85 100 81 100 77

Athletic Training (MS) 0 * 91 100 91 67 87 100 81

Counselor Education 100 84 100 82 100 — 98 84

Education 84 83 81 84 83 88 83 89

Nursing (BS) 95 85 80 87 100 88 100 88

KSC Athletic Training 86 81 100 85 100 81 — —

Education 71 83 72 84 95 88 98 89

Nursing (BS) 63 85 78 92 88 88 100 88

Registered Dietitian Undergrad — — 89 71 100 95 100 93.5

Registered Dietitian Internship Post-undergrad 93 85 87.5 85 88 85 94.5 92

GSC Education 94 83 97 84 96 88 85 89

2016 2017 2018 2019

USNH

Institution

Rate

USNH

Institution

Rate

USNH

Institution

Rate

USNH

Institution

Rate

0

50

100

2016 17 18 19

AthTrainingBSRate

UNH

0

50

100

2016 17 18 19

OccTherapyRate

UNH

0

50

100

2016 17 18 19

RecMgmtRate

UNH

0

50

100

2016 17 18 19

NursingBSRate

UNH

0

50

100

2016 17 18 19

NursingMSRate

UNH

0

50

100

2016 17 18 19

EducationRate

UNH

0

50

100

2016 17 18 19

LawRate

UNH

0

50

100

2016 17 18 19

AthTrainingBSRate

PSU

0

50

100

2016 17 18 19

AthTrainingMSRate

PSU

0

50

100

2016 17 18 19

NursingBSRate

PSU

0

50

100

2016 17 18 19

CounselorEdRate

PSU

0

50

100

2016 17 18 19

EducationRate

PSU

0

50

100

2016 17 18 19

AthTrainingBSRate

KSC

0

50

100

2016 17 18 19

DietitianRate

KSC

0

50

100

2016 17 18 19

Diet InternRate

KSC

0

50

100

2016 17 18 19

NursingBSRate

KSC

0

50

100

2016 17 18 19

EducationRate

KSC

0

50

100

2016 17 18 19

EducationRate

GSC

Page 71 of 110


Student Learning Outcomes

LEARNING ASSESSMENT

ATTACHED: UNH Capstone and Collegiate Learning Assessment PSU General Education “Habits of Mind” Assessment KSC Collegewide Learning Outcomes, Integrative Studies Assessment, Survey Findings GSC Student Learning Outcomes

Page 72 of 110



LEARNING ASSESSMENT — Granite State College

Executive Summary

Granite State College is institutionalizing an assessment process to provide data across the student lifespan on multiple direct measures of learning. This data is regularly informing curricular improvements and student support systems at the college. Over the past two years, there have been over 12,000 individual assessments of student learning in multiple sections of undergraduate general education, major, and capstone courses. From Fall 2018 through Winter 2020, 1,785 unique students produced work that was assessed relative to the learning outcomes associated with their course(s). These results have been used to improve learning experiences and academic supports for students, inform decisions about changes to undergraduate majors and programs, and offer a roadmap for improvements to all our educational programs. In addition to the work in the undergraduate area, there have been ongoing assessments of each GSC graduate student’s ability to demonstrate professional competencies. During this academic year, analysis of these results helped to guide curriculum changes following program reviews. This year, we made significant progress on the four goals set forth in last year’s update, namely:

1. Revise general education courses and implement assessment protocols in all remaining general education courses as per the recent General Education program review.

2. Implement the signature Assignment/Embedded Assessment design throughout the General Education, Program, and Capstone levels of two academic programs.

3. Continue to review data from redesigned courses and graduate e-portfolio assessments and implement needed changes to curriculum, pedagogy, and/or student support programs.

4. Develop methods for connecting student learning outcome data with other data about student success.

These four initiatives are further described below. Expansion of Assessment Work

At GSC, students demonstrate their growing knowledge, skills, and abilities by completing signature assignments incorporated into courses. Faculty then provide students feedback through regular grading processes, but they also assess students on associated learning outcomes and competencies. Since 2017, faculty have been building signature assignments in general education and capstone courses and this year, began incorporating these opportunities into program courses (courses in the major). Growth in participation in the learning outcomes assessment process has increased in terms of the numbers of courses, sections, faculty, and students, as well as the total number of individual competency assessments conducted.

Page 73 of 110

Implementation in BS Health Care Management and BS Allied Health Leadership

Incorporation of student learning outcomes assessment has occurred throughout the curriculum in two undergraduate academic programs this year. As a result of the work of the faculty in these two programs, 66 students were assessed at the program level on the Specialized Knowledge institutional outcome, which measures students’ ability to demonstrate knowledge and skills in their major field of study.

Transparency of Data and Use for Improvement

Data gathered through learning outcomes assessment is only valuable to the degree that it is used to inform students about their growth and to initiate improvements to curriculum and student support services. Toward that end, GSC has been working on creating data dashboards in several formats, to make the results of student learning more transparent and actionable for relevant audiences. In our assessment protocols, there are increasing levels of achievement students are expected to demonstrate to meet proficiency at each course level (General Education, Program, and Capstone). This results in fewer students reaching proficiency as the rigor increases at each course level. As Figure 1 illustrates, 90% of students demonstrate the expected level of proficiency in general education courses, 80% do so in the program-level courses, and only 75% do so in capstone courses. While almost all students in Capstone courses successfully completed the class and almost all students performed at Program Level Proficiency or above, such trends in the learning outcomes data reinforce the need for greater support to ensure that all students will be able to reach the highest levels of performance. Some support is provided, but more on-demand assistance, particularly for academic research and writing, is being developed by faculty for use across the curriculum.

Figure 1: Proficiency by Course Type

Matrices, like the sample in Figure 2, enable faculty members to look at the learning outcomes included in the course(s) they teach and facilitate a conversation with colleagues about how to interpret the results and use them in future course planning. All faculty who teach a particular course are invited to participate in a two-hour workshop where they complete the matrix for the outcomes associated with the course and discuss needed improvements with the program director and/or faculty lead for the course. This year, reflection on course-level data resulted in changes to course design, assignment expectations, and student support resources.

Page 74 of 110

Figure 2: Sample Learning Matrix

Further Research & Benchmarking It is a continuing goal of the learning assessment program to validate the data GSC is collecting through comparisons to national benchmarks and/or other internal data sources. This year, we used publicly available data from the VALUE Institute and the Multi-State Collaborative to compare GSC students’ performance on specific competencies to the student outcomes assessed by these two national studies. Figure 3 shows typical results of these comparisons: GSC students were generally assessed at a higher level of performance when compared to this national benchmark data. Benchmarking GSC assessment data in this way and, eventually, through direct submissions of student work to the VALUE Institute, will help to validate both the process and product of our assessment efforts.

Page 75 of 110

Figure 3: GSC Data Compared to Similar Competency Data from Multi-State Collaborative and VALUE Institute

This year, GSC also had the opportunity to present some of the assessment work to colleagues through the New England Educational Network Fall Forum, an invited poster session at the annual NECHE conference, and the New England Assessment Conference. Feedback from presentation participants has contributed to ongoing improvement of our assessment program.

Future Learning Assessment Plans

In AY 2020-2021 we intend to complete the following components of this multi-year curriculum re-design and assessment project:

1) Further standardize faculty training and development protocols for student learning outcome

assessment in the undergraduate and graduate programs; 2) Implement the Signature Assignment/Embedded Assessment design throughout the General

Education, Program, and Capstone levels of half of the undergraduate academic majors; 3) Continue to create greater transparency of assessment data for specific audiences:

a. Faculty/staff: Developing data analysis and visualizations of undergraduate assessment results by major to facilitate use in program reviews;

b. Accreditors and other external stakeholders: Creating data visualizations of institutional outcomes that can be easily updated and made available on the GSC website;

c. Students: Partnering with faculty members and advising staff to empower students with information about the goals and results of learning outcome assessment.

4) Implement recommended improvements to curriculum, pedagogy, and/or student support that result from analysis of assessment results;

5) Develop a data warehouse linking student learning outcomes data with other variables associated with student achievement and the learning environment, allowing us to seek opportunities to conduct further evaluation and public scholarship on the assessment work being conducted at GSC.

Page 76 of 110



LEARNING ASSESSMENT — Keene State College

Prepared by Kim Schmidl-Gagne, Program Manager for Diversity and Multiculturalism Initiatives/NEASC and George Smeaton, Director for Institutional Effectiveness and Institutional Research

National Survey of Student Engagement Overall Findings Administered every three years to freshmen and senior students, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) assesses student involvement in high-impact educational practices found to promote learning, foster retention, and speed degree completion. KSC administered the full NSSE survey and the Civic Engagement supplementary module in April 2019. In addition, for the first time, KSC administered the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement and its Civic Engagement module. FSSE asks faculty parallel questions to those asked of students by the NSSE survey. Administering the two surveys will enable KSC to determine if there are discrepancies in student and faculty perceptions regarding student participation in high-impact educational practices and in Civic Engagement skills and involvement. Results from the 2019 survey will be available in August and will be shared with the USNH at that time. Key findings from the 2019 administration of the survey are as follows. Engagement Indicators First-Year Student Findings. KSC first-year students scored significantly lower than regional comparators in engaging in discussions with diverse others. They did not statistically differ with comparators in measures of academic challenge, experiences with faculty, and perceptions of the overall campus environment. Senior Student Findings. KSC seniors had significantly higher scores than comparator institution students in Reflective & Integrative Learning, Student-Faculty Interaction, Effective Teaching Practices, and the perception of a supportive campus environment. KSC seniors did not significantly differ from peers in the use of effective Learning Strategies and Quantitative Reasoning. High-Impact Practices First-Year Student Findings. First-year KSC students were significantly more likely to have engaged in research with a faculty member than were regional comparator institution students. They did not statistically differ from comparators in participation in service Learning or taking part in a learning community. Senior Student Findings. KSC seniors were significantly more likely than comparators engage in service learning, complete an internship or field experience, study abroad, and participate in a culminating senior experience. Further, they were significantly more likely to have participated in at least one high-impact practice, and to have participated in two or more of them. They did not differ from comparators in being part of a learning community or conducting research with a faculty member. Graduating Student Survey Findings Each year, a satisfaction survey is attached to the form students use to register for Commencement. Typically, the response rate to this survey is in excess of 90%. Findings from the 2020 survey relating to academic quality include the following.

• 91% of graduates agreed or strongly agreed that their academic program challenged them to do their very best.

• 82% agreed or strongly agreed that KSC has provided the assistance I need to succeed academically.

• 87% indicated that, overall, they were satisfied with their KSC education.

• 82% would recommend KSC to friends or siblings as a good place to go to college.

Page 77 of 110

Student Learning Outcomes LEARNING ASSESSMENT — KSC, continued

College-Wide Learning Outcomes (CWLO) Assessment

All Keene State College students gain proficiency in the content of their own major, and they learn academic, career, communication and interpersonal skills to prepare them to pursue meaningful work.

Regardless of major, by the time Keene State College students complete their undergraduate experience they develop critical thinking, creative inquiry, intercultural competence, civic engagement, and commitment to well-being that will serve them as active citizens and lifelong learners. Keene State College students will achieve each of the following College-Wide Learning Outcomes (CWLOs): Critical thinking, Creative Inquiry, Intercultural Competence, Civic Engagement, Commitment to Well-Being, and Sustainability.

Assessment rubrics have been formulated for each CWLO and are being piloted in a variety of academic and co-curricular settings including the College’s Academic Excellence Conference. In addition, an assessment test was developed to assess the newest outcome, Sustainability. This test will be administered to incoming students and seniors in the coming academic year.

Civic Engagement.

Civic Engagement was the only CWLO for which new data was collected during the 2019-2020 academic year. Assessment of KSC student achievement of this CWLO was conducted using data from the National Survey of Student Engagement’s (NSSE) supplementary Civic Engagement module and from responses to the Graduating Senior Survey.

NSSE’s Civic Engagement Topical Module. In addition to the standard portion of the NSSE, KSC administers the supplementary Civic Engagement topical module as a means of assessing the Civic Engagement CWLO. In 2019, our freshmen scored significantly higher than our comparator institutions in voting in campus, local, state, or national elections. However, they scored significantly lower in

• Discussing state, national, or global issues with others

• Being encouraged to address important social, economic, or political issues in class discussions

• Being informed about campus or local issues

Seniors in 2019 scored significantly higher than seniors from comparator institutions in

• Agreement that KSC emphasizes o Discussing important social, economic, or political issues with others o Organizing activities focused on important social, economic, or political issues o Being an informed and active citizen o Being involved in an organization or group focused on important social, economic, or political issues o Encouraging free speech and expression o Voting in campus, local, state, or national elections

• Agreement that KSC encourages addressing important social, economic, or political issues o In course assignments o In course discussion o Outside of class

• Informing themselves about campus or local issues

• Informing themselves about state, national, or global issues

• Discussing local or campus issues with others

• Discussing state, national, or global issues with others

• Raising awareness about campus or local issues

• Raised awareness about state, national, or global issues

• Asking others to address campus or local issues

• Organizing others to work on campus or local issues

Graduating Student Survey Findings

Findings from the 2020 Graduating Student Survey relating to Civic Engagement include the following.

• Half of graduates indicated that they were satisfied or extremely satisfied with KSC’s civic engagement/community service opportunities.

• 35 graduates provided specific examples of classes, assignments, our outside-of-class experiences that helped them achieve the Civic Engagement CWLO

Page 78 of 110

Student Learning Outcomes LEARNING ASSESSMENT — KSC, continued

Integrative Studies Program (ISP) Assessment

KSC’s ISP program is designed to foster in our students the capacity to integrate learning within the curriculum, between the curriculum and the co-curriculum, and with communities beyond the classroom. Integrative learning is both a framework for teaching and learning in all ISP courses and a summative learning outcome for the program. Keene State College students will achieve each of the following ISP outcomes: Integrative Learning, Critical Thinking Creative Thinking, Writing, Quantitative Literacy, and Information Literacy.

In 2016, the ISP director and ISP Committee collaborated with the director for Institutional Effectiveness and Institutional Research to formulate a four-year schedule for assessing each of the outcomes of the ISP. As of the 2019-20 academic year, all ISP outcomes have been assessed. A Formal report on the results of outcome assessment was prepared by the Director for Institutional Effectiveness and Institutional Research, which was shared with the Director of the ISP, and the campus community.

Key findings and recommendations from the report are as follows:

• Critical Thinking. Critical thinking skills of KSC students are below the level expected based upon their SAT scores. Additional assessment using rubric scoring of student artifacts recommended.

• Writing. After completing one writing course (Integrated TW), 25% of KSC students demonstrated ISP Writing outcome achievement. This indicates that students acquire a solid writing foundation in ITW, but further development of writing skills from subsequent courses is required for nearly all students.

• Quantitative Literacy. Between 25% and 50% of the students completing the College’s Quantitative Literacy Exam achieved satisfactory-level performance on the test’s subscales.

• Information Literacy. KSC students IL proficiency is largely in the College-Ready range, a finding comparable to results from peer institutions.

• Integrative Learning. After completing the II course requirement of the ISP, 21% of the students demonstrated satisfactory outcome achievement in both dimensions of Integrative Learning. The findings indicate that this single course requirement is insufficient in enabling students to achieve this ISP outcome.

• Creative Thinking. After completing only one course in graphic design, almost no students exhibited senior-level performance in any of the dimensions. The findings suggest that a single course in a creative discipline is insufficient in enabling students to achieve this ISP outcome.

Funding for Assessment. Up to $30,000 is available each year for assessment grants. Over the past three years, $74,283 in assessment grant funding was awarded to support 45 assessment projects—an average of $1,651 per funded project. Assessment grants are intended to support innovation in assessment at the program level, not to fund routine assessment activities.

Page 79 of 110

USNH ACADEMIC QUALITY METRICS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE, JUNE,25, 2020


LEARNING ASSESSMENT — Plymouth State University

The university decided to discontinue administration of the CLA+ in July of 2019. Despite significant effort, PSU was unable to obtain a representative sample of 100+ students, thus providing unreliable results. Instead, the university is now utilizing assessment of the General Education program to determine student growth in the areas of purposeful communication, problem solving, integrated perspective, and self-regulated learning, which PSU calls the “Habits of Mind.” Assessment of the General Education program is focused on two classes in the program: IS1115 (Tackling a Wicked Problem or TWP) and IS4220 (Signature Project). These two classes form “bookends” to the General Education program. All first-year students are required to take IS1115, and IS4220 is the pilot course for a new General Education capstone (INCAP) starting in Fall 2020 to be required of all students in their junior or senior year. All sections of IS1115 and IS4220 incorporate a common assignment, which will allow PSU to compare the percentage of students at each Habit of Mind level of achievement in the first year with the percentage at each level of achievement in the INCAP. There are four levels of achievement: pre-basecamp, basecamp, climbing, and summit. The expectation is that most first year students will be at the basecamp level and most INCAP students will be at the summit level. If the assessment findings differ from this, PSU will investigate and implement appropriate changes. The methodology allows the university to interpret assessment findings and then take actions to improve student learning each academic year, while maintaining the ability to measure student growth from first year to capstone from a cohort standpoint. First-year students: IS1115 in Fall 2019 Sample size: 242 Population size: 864

Habit of Mind Pre-Basecamp Basecamp Climbing Summit

Purposeful Communication

28% 64% 8% 0%

Problem

Solving 24% 69% 7% 0%

Integrated Perspective

31% 63% 6% 0%

Self-Regulated Learning

36% 51% 13% 0%

Summary

Results 30% 62% 8% 0%

Note: Due to COVID-19, the university did not assess IS1115 in Spring 2020. The majority (82%) of students who took IS1115 in AY20 did so in Fall 2019. The INCAP course, IS4220, will be offered in Fall 2020.

Page 80 of 110



LEARNING ASSESSMENT — University of New Hampshire

Capstone and National-level Assessment

The overall student learning outcome for an undergraduate student is reflected in and determined by successful completion of a capstone. Every academic program has a required capstone. Every capstone has five components:

• Demonstrated ability to define, analyze, and research a problem;

• Demonstrated ability to evaluate, analyze, and synthesize data;

• Demonstrated ability to transfer that data and analysis to a new situation or context;

• Demonstrated ability to communicate the answer in a way that is appropriate for the professional community defined by the major.

Each student capstone is designed by faculty in the major to measure disciplinary or professional learning outcomes; each is graded individually by faculty. Examples, rubrics, and summative data are archived in the Academic Assessment Inventory (AAI) and presented to NECHE every five years. NECHE requires that we demonstrate how summative data informs program improvement. A passing grade is a requirement for earning a BA, BS, or BSE degree. Hence, 100% of graduates complete this. The relative quality of student accomplishment is reflected in the assigned grade. This requirement aligns with recommendations by both the Degree Qualifications Profile and the AAC&U LEAP Essential Learning Outcomes. In addition, UNH tracks other AAC&U-designated High Impact Practices. Finally, to be genuinely useful, data needs to be contextualized. We use the following regularly reported data to inform our assessment of student learning:

• Retention rates

• Completion rates

• Default rates

• Licensure passage rates, where applicable

• First Destination survey data

• National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) data

• Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) data:

In 2013, the Council for Aid to Education expanded the scope of the CLA with the introduction of CLA+. This enhanced version of the examination provides useful and reliable information about educational growth at the student level as well as the institutional level. Other features new to CLA+ include sub-scores for scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical reading and evaluation, and critiquing an argument. The addition of mastery levels also supports the reporting of criterion-referenced results in relation to skill proficiency. CLA+ includes two major components: a Performance Task (PT) and a series of Selected-Response Questions (SRQs). The Performance Task presents students with a real-world situation that requires a purposeful written response. Students are asked to address an issue, propose the solution to a problem, or recommend a course of action to resolve a conflict. They are instructed to support their responses by utilizing information provided in a Document Library. This repository contains a variety of reference materials, such as technical reports, data tables, newspaper articles, office memoranda, and emails. A full PT includes four to nine documents in the library. Students have 60 minutes to complete this constructed-response task. In the second part of the examination, students are asked to answer 25 Selected Response Questions. Ten questions measure scientific and quantitative reasoning, ten measure critical reading and evaluation, and five measure students’ ability to critique an argument. CLA+ is a valuable tool that measures critical thinking and written communication skills of students in higher education.

Page 81 of 110

Student Learning Outcomes LEARNING ASSESSMENT — UNH, continued

Institutions use CLA+ to estimate institutional and individual student growth of these essential skills, measure the efficacy of curricular and other programs, and demonstrate individual, class, and institutional proficiency. CLA+ results give individual students an opportunity to better understand their strengths and areas for improvements in order to master the skills necessary for post-collegiate success. CLA+ Digital Badging gives students who are proficient and beyond an opportunity to communicate these skills directly to employers. CLA+ results are a tool to measure growth on these skills and determine how your institution compares to other colleges and universities using CLA+.

In fall 2017, we administered CLA+ to undeclared freshmen in the College of Liberal Arts. UNH has a freshman total CLA+ score of 1049; this score is greater than or equal to the average freshman score at 55% of CLA+ schools. A score of 1049 demonstrates basic mastery of the critical thinking and written-communication skills measured by CLA+. We plan to administer the CLA+ to a sample of still-in-residence graduating seniors during the spring 2021 semester. (These are among the same students who completed the CLA+ as first-year students in fall 2017.) The cohort was part of a recently initiated program designed to promote undeclared students’ academic success and to guide them as they selected a major. We wanted to assess longitudinally the impact of the program by means of the CLA+.

Page 82 of 110


Academic Programs with State Approval and/or National Accreditation: Granite State College

State Approval

Program

Approving Body

Approval Status

Follow Up Action by Institution

Most Recent Review

Next Review

Educator Preparation: Initial

General Special Ed General Special Ed & Elem Ed Early Childhood Special Ed Early Childhood Math Grades 5-8 Secondary Math Grades 7-12 Ed

Technology Integrator Blind & Visually Impaired Teaching Deaf & Hard of Hearing Teaching

Advanced Specific Learning Disabilities Emotional & Behavioral Disabilities Intellectual & Developmental

Disabilities Reading & Writing Specialist Reading & Writing Teacher Education Technology Integrator

NH State Board of Education Continued - NO conditions

n/a 2011 April 2021

Note: GSC offers a nursing RN to BSN program, which does not require NH Board of Nursing approval as does an RN licensure program.

National Accreditation

Program

Accrediting Body

Accreditation Status


Most Recent Review

Next Review

Nursing RN-BSN Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education

Continued accreditation - NO conditions

Annual report 2019 Fall 2029

Nursing MS: Nursing Health Care Leadership

Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education

Initial accreditation - NO conditions

Annual report with additional progress report due June 2021

2019 Fall 2024

Project Management MS Project Management Institute, Global Accreditation Certification


Annual report 2015 2022

Educator Preparation: General Special Education Elementary Education Early Childhood Early Childhood Special Ed Math Grades 5-8 Secondary Math Grades 7-12 Reading & Writing Specialist Reading & Writing Teacher Specific Learning Disabilities Intellectual & Developmental

Disabilities Emotional & Behavioral Disabilities

Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation


Annual report 2016 2023

Page 83 of 110


Academic Programs with State Approval and/or National Accreditation: Keene State College

State Approval

Program Approving Body Approval Status Follow Up Action by Institution

Most Recent Review

Next Review


Early Childhood Elementary Ed English Mathematics Modern Languages Sciences Social Studies Dance Education Music Education Physical Education

Advanced Curriculum & Instruction Educational Leadership School Counselor Special Education

NH State Board of Education Continued – NO conditions

Complete NH Department of Education annual report in August.

Spring 2014

Spring 2021

Nursing BS NH Board of Nursing Approved – NO conditions

2019 Spring 2023


Program Accrediting Body Accreditation Status Follow Up Action by Institution

Most Recent Review

Next Review

Chemistry American Chemical Society Continued – NO Conditions

n/a 2013 Spring 2021


Early Childhood Elementary Ed English Mathematics Modern Languages Sciences Social Studies Music Education Physical Education

Advanced Curriculum & Instruction Educational Leadership Special Education

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation

Continued – NO Conditions

Complete the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) annual report each year in April and report specifically on progress toward correcting areas for improvement cited in the action report. CAEP 2020 Annual Report was submitted in April 2020.

One-Year Good Cause Extension granted by CAEP on November 8, 2019. Dance Education and School Counselor Education voluntarily withdrawn from accreditation.

Spring 2014

Spring 2022

Public Health Nutrition DPD Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition & Dietetics


Final ‘Program Assessment Report’ submitted and accepted March 2019. Next review delayed till Fall 2023

2018-19 2023

Public Health, Post-Baccalaureate Dietetic Internship

Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition & Dietetics


Reviewed in 2019-2020; outcome pending 2013 2020

Music BA/BM National Assn of Schools of Music


n/a 2012-13 2020-21

Nursing BS Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education


n/a 2018 2028

Educator Preparation: Initial - Early Childhood

National Assn for the Education of Young Children


n/a Fall 2018

2026

Educator Preparation: Initial - Elementary Ed

Assn for Childhood Education International Elementary Ed (ACEI)

Continued – WITH conditions

ACEI has discontinued its program review role, Program in transition to using CAEP Evidence Review Standard 1 (or State Program Review Option). Institution to submit response to conditions as part of CAEP Standard 1 submission in Summer 2021.

Spring 2018

Spring 2022

Page 84 of 110

Academic Programs with State Approval and/or National Accreditation: Keene State College

National Accreditation, continued

Program

Accrediting Body



Most Recent Review

Next Review

Educator Preparation: Initial - English

National Council of Teachers of English

Continued – NO conditions

n/a Spring 2018

Spring 2025

Educator Preparation: Initial - Math - Middle School

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics


Nationally recognized after Response to Conditions report submitted and approved January 2020.

Fall 2018

Spring 2027

Educator Preparation: Initial - Math - Secondary



n/a Spring 2018

Spring 2025

Educator Preparation: Initial - Modern Languages

American Council on The Teaching of Foreign Languages


Submitted ‘Response to Conditions Report’ March 2019; Nationally recognized; approved March 27, 2020

Spring 2018

Fall 2026

Educator Preparation: Initial - Physical Education

Society of Health and Physical Educators (SHAPE)


SHAPE has discontinued its program review role, Program in transition to using CAEP Evidence Review Standard 1 (or State Program Review Option). Institution to submit response to conditions as part of CAEP Standard 1 submission in Summer 2021.

Spring 2018

Spring 2022


Earth/Space Science Chemistry Life Sciences Middle Level Science Physics

National Science Teachers Assn


n/a Spring 2018

Spring 2025

Educator Preparation: Initial - Social Studies

National Council for the Social Studies


‘Response to Conditions Report’ submitted March 2020.

Spring 2018

pending

Educator Preparation: Advanced - Educational

Leadership

Educational Leadership Constituent Council


Submitted ‘Response to Conditions Report’ February 2019. Nationally recognized; approved July 26, 2019.

Spring 2018

Fall 2026

Educator Preparation: Advanced - Special Education

Council for Exceptional Children Continued – NO Conditions

Submitted ‘Response to Conditions Report’ March 2019. Nationally recognized; approved July 29, 2019.

Spring 2018

Fall 2026

Page 85 of 110


Academic Programs with State Approval and/or National Accreditation: Plymouth State University

State Approval

Program Approving Body Approval Status Follow Up Action by Institution

Most Recent Review

Next Review

Educator Preparation: Institution & programs

.

NH State Board of Education Approved – WITH conditions for four programs

Approved with no conditions for all programs except: Special Ed Admin, Library Media Specialist, School Superintendent, and School Principal (all of which hold national NCATE accreditation and conditional approval by NH Board of Education pending 2021 CAEP submission).

2018 2024

Nursing BS NH Board of Nursing Approved – NO conditions

Previously approved on probation. Full approval restored Oct. 2019. Review scheduled this fall as a follow up to full approval.

2019 Fall 2020



Most Recent Review

Next Review

Athletic Training – Professional Program (MS)

Council for Accreditation of Athletic Training Education


n/a 2017 2026

Business – Undergraduate: Accounting Business Administration Finance Management Marketing Sports Management

Accreditation Council for Business Schools & Programs


Previous conditions were addressed and report provided Sept. 2019.

2017 2027

Business – Graduate: MBA



2017 2027

Business – Graduate: MSA



2017 2027

Clinical Mental Health Counseling

Council for Accreditation of Counseling & Related Educational Programs


n/a 2015 2022

Educator Preparation: Initial Teacher Preparation

Assn for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation (AAQEP)

Recognized – NO conditions

Recognition newly sought and obtained July 2019.

2019

2026

Educator Preparation: Advanced

National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)


n/a 2014 2021

Educator Preparation: Initial Teacher Preparation Programs below are recognized by professional orgs as part of CAEP review

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP)


Taskstream accountability system and recruitment plan successfully resolved issues related to probationary recognition. CAEP recognition continued with no conditions May 2020.

2021 2024

Educator Preparation: Early Childhood Education

National Assn for the Education of Young Children


n/a 2017 2025

Educator Preparation: Elementary Ed (undergrad)

Assn for Childhood Education International


n/a 2016 2024

Educator Preparation: English

National Council for Teachers of English


n/a 2016 2025

Educator Preparation: English to Speakers of Other Languages

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages


n/a 2017 2025

Educator Preparation: Health Education

Society of Health & School Educators


n/a 2016 2025

Educator Preparation: General Special Ed

Council for Exceptional Children Recognized – NO conditions

n/a 2016 2025

Educator Preparation: Math 5-8



n/a 2017 2021

Educator Preparation: Math 7-12



n/a 2019 2021

Page 86 of 110

Academic Programs with State Approval and/or National Accreditation: Plymouth State University National Accreditation, continued


Most Recent Review

Next Review

Educator Preparation: Physical Education

Society of Health & School Educators


n/a 2017 2025

Educator Preparation: School Library/Media Specialist

American Library Assn/American Assn of School Librarians

Recognized – NO Conditions

n/a 2017 2025

Educator Preparation: School Principal



n/a 2013 2021

Educator Preparation: School Psychologist

National Assn of School Psychologists


n/a 2016 2025

Educator Preparation: Social Studies

National Council for the Social Studies


n/a 2017 2025

Educator Preparation: Superintendent



n/a 2012 2021

School Counseling Council for Accreditation of Counseling & Related Educational Programs


n/a 2015 2022

Nursing BS Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education


n/a 2018 2028

Physical Therapy Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE)


Full (first-time) accreditation decision issued May 2020.

2019 2025

Social Work Council on Social Work Education


n/a 2015 2023

Page 87 of 110


Academic Programs with State Approval and/or National Accreditation: University of New Hampshire

State Approval

College Program Approving Body

Approval Status


Most Recent Review

Next Review

CEPS Chemistry BS American Chemical Society Continued – NO conditions

Review time frame (originally 2019-20) was changed while ACS moved to an online review format during AY 2019-20. Program will be reviewed between July and Dec. 2020.

2014-15 2020-21

CEPS Teacher Education: Math Education (undergrad

& grad included in Secondary Ed grad programs. No certification or NHBOE review at this level)

NH State Board of Education


n/a 2019-20 2026-27

COLA Teacher Education: Early Childhood MEd



n/a 2019-20 2026-27

COLA Teacher Education: Early Childhood MEd, Special

Needs option Special Education MEd



Progress report due by August 13, 2020.

2019-20 2022-23

COLA Teacher Education: Music BM




2019-20 2022-23

COLA Teacher Education:

Elementary MEd Secondary MEd, MAT



n/a 2019-20 2022-23

COLA Teacher Education: Educational Administration &

Supervision EdS



n/a 2019-20 2026-27

COLA Teacher Education:

Educational Administration & Supervision EdS - Principal & Special Ed Administrator




2019-20 2022-23

CHHS Family Studies, P-3 Teacher Certification (undergrad)



n/a 2019-20 2026-27

CHHS Kinesiology/Pedagogy (undergrad)



n/a 2019-20 2026-27

CHHS Nursing (undergrad) NH Board of Nursing Continued – NO conditions

n/a 2015-16 2020-21


College Program

Accrediting Body



Most Recent Review

Next Review

CEPS Engineering: Bioengineering, Chemical, Environmental, Mechanical

Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology


n/a 2017-18 2023-24

CEPS Engineering: Civil, Computer, Electrical

Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology


Previously accredited with conditions. Interim reports of corrective action were submitted July 2019 and Nov. 2019. Interim review Nov. 2019 found that issues were resolved. Official report shared with CEPS Feb. 2020 granting full accreditation with no conditions.

2019-20 2023-24

CEPS Computer Science: Computer Science BS Computer Science BS -

Bioinformatics

Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology - Computer Science Accreditation Board


n/a 2014-15 2020-21

CEPS Computer Science (grad) External review Continued – NO conditions

n/a 2012-13 2022-23

CEPS Information Technology BS Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology – Computer Science Accreditation Board


n/a 2014-15 2020-21

CEPS Engineering Physics Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology

Initial accreditation in process

To resubmit for accreditation, must submit a Request for Evaluation by Jan. 31 of the calendar year in which a visit is desired.

2017-18

Page 88 of 110



College Program

Accrediting Body



Most Recent Review

Next Review

COLA Music (undergrad & grad) Music Education (undergrad) (BM MUED)

National Assn of Schools of Music


n/a 2012-13 2021-22

COLA Music BM (pre-teaching) National Association of Schools of Music


Final approval received Dec. 2019. Added degree program was provisionally approved until we had enough graduates to submit for final approval.

2012-13 2022-23

COLA Teacher Education: Elementary Ed MEd Secondary Ed MEd

Council for the Accred. of Educator Preparation


NOTE: UNH is not pursuing continued national accreditation through CAEP.

2013-14 n/a

CHHS Communication Sciences & Disorders

Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology & Speech Language Pathology


Previously accredited with conditions. Site visit Oct. 2019 found issues successfully resolved.

2019-20

2020-30

CHHS Family Studies, P-3 Teacher Certification (undergrad)

National Assn for Education of Young Children


n/a 2019-20 2026-27

CHHS Health Management & Policy (undergrad)

Assn of Univ. Programs in Health Administration – Undergraduate

Re-accreditation pending

Report submitted. Decision and next review date expected by end of June 2020.

2018-19 Pending

CHHS Kinesiology/Athletic Training (undergrad)

Joint Review Committee on Educational Programs in Athletic Training

Probation continued

Continued noncompliance with Standard 11. April 2020 Show Cause accepted and 1-year extension of probation granted. Progress Report and Action Plan due June 2020.

2017-18 2027-28

CHHS Kinesiology/Outdoor Education (undergrad & grad)

Assn for Experimental Education


n/a 2018-19 2028-29

CHHS Marriage Family Therapy Commission of Accreditation for Marriage & Family Therapy Ed.


Re-accreditation pending. Conditional stipulations met. Additional reporting submitted spring 2020; site visit scheduled for AY 2020-21. Everything is pushed back due to COVID-19, new date has not been set yet.

2013-14 2020-21

CHHS Nursing: Bachelor’s, master’s, doctor of nursing practice, post-graduate APRN certificate

Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education


CCNE site visit scheduled Sept. 23-25, 2020. 2015-16 2020-21

CHHS Occupational Therapy MS American Occupational Therapy Assn, Accred. Council for Occupational Therapy Education


Previously continued with conditions. 2011 Standard A.2.8. licensed OT and OTA faculty noncompliance considered fully corrected by progress report submitted May 2019 per ACOTE March 27-28, 2020.

2013-14 2020-21

CHHS Occupational Therapy Doctoral Program

Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education

Candidacy status granted

Will start enrolling students fall 2021 April 2019

2024-25

CHHS Public Health MPH Council on Education for Public Health

Probation continued

Submitted report June 2019; re-accreditation site visit held Nov. 2019. Decision and next review date expected by end of June 2020.

2019-20 Pending

CHHS Recreation Management & Policy, Program Administration option (undergrad)

National Recreation & Parks Assn, Council on Accred. of Parks, Recreation, Tourism & Related Professions


n/a 2015-16 2020-21

CHHS Recreation Management & Policy, Therapeutic Recreation option (undergrad)

Commission on Accred. of Allied Health Education Programs, Committee on Accred. of Recreational Therapy Education


n/a 2019-20 2024-25

CHHS Social Work (undergrad & grad)

Council on Social Work Education


n/a 2017-18 2025-26

CHHS Child Studies & Development Center

National Assn for Education of Young Children


n/a 2019-20 2023-24

COLSA Biomedical Science BS - Medical Laboratory Science option

National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Sciences


n/a 2014-15 2024-25

COLSA Didactic Program in Dietetics BS

Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics, Accred. Council for Education in Nutrition & Dietetics

Re-accreditation pending

Site visit held Oct. 2019. Program response provided in Jan. 2020. Positive decision expected July 2020.

2019-20 2024-25

Page 89 of 110



College Program

Accrediting Body



Most Recent Review

Next Review

COLSA Nutritional Sciences MS combined with Dietetic Internship (MSDI)

Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics, Accred. Council for Education in Nutrition & Dietetics

Re-accreditation decision pending

Site visit held Oct. 2019. Program response provided in Jan. 2020. Positive decision expected July 2020. (MSDI is a new program but considered a “re-accreditation” because it is classified as a program change.)

2019-20 2024-25

COLSA Forestry Program BSF Society of American Foresters


2016-17 2026-27

UNHM Engineering Technology Technology Accred. Commission of the Accred. Board for Engineering & Technology


Program evaluated end of 2019 with 1 finding in Criterion 8 “Institutional Support” regarding machine shop staffing. Issue was addressed and documentation provided to ABET April 2020. Decision expected July 2020.

2019-20 pending

UNHM Sign Language Interpretation Commission on Collegiate Interpreter Education


n/a 2016-17 2026-27

TSAS Veterinary Technology AAS Committee on Veterinary Technician Education & Activities, American Veterinary Medical Assn


Annual report due Sept. 2020. 2019-20 2024-25

TSAS Forest Technology AAS Society of American Foresters


n/a 2016-17 2026-27

PAUL Business Administration BS/MS

Assn to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business – International


n/a 2018-19 2023-24

PAUL Accounting MS Assn to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business – International


n/a 2018-19 2023-24

PAUL Hospitality Management BS Assn to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business – International


n/a 2018-19 2023-24

LAW UNH School of Law American Bar Assn Continued – NO conditions

n/a 2014-15 2020-21

Page 90 of 110

USNH Institutional Comparator Groups as designated by institution

UNH Bentley University Waltham, MA Boston University Boston, MA Northeastern University Boston, MA Quinnipiac University Hamden, CT Rutgers University-New Brunswick New Brunswick, NJ University at Buffalo (SUNY) Buffalo, NY University of Connecticut Storrs, CT University of Delaware Newark, DE University of Maine Orono, ME University of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst, MA University of Rhode Island Kingston, RI University of Vermont Burlington, VT

PSU Bridgewater State University Bridgewater, MA Frostburg State University Frostburg, MD Millersville University of Pennsylvania Millersville, PA Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania Shippensburg, PA SUNY College at New Paltz New Paltz, NY SUNY College at Plattsburgh Plattsburgh, NY The College of New Jersey Ewing, NJ University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth North Dartmouth, MA University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point Stevens Point, WI University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Whitewater, WI Western Connecticut State University Danbury, CT Westfield State University Westfield, MA

KSC Eastern Connecticut State University Willimantic, CT Fort Lewis College Durango, CO Henderson State University Arkadelphia, AR Ithaca College Ithaca, NY Longwood University Farmville, VA Ramapo College of New Jersey Mahwah, NJ Shepherd University Shepherdstown, WV Southern Oregon University Ashland, OR SUNY at Geneseo Geneseo, NY Truman State University Kirksville, MD University of Mary Washington Fredericksburg, VA

New Britain, CT LaGrande, OR Boca Raton, FL Naples, FL Plymouth, WI Lewiston, ID Midway, KY Minot, ND

GSC Charter Oak State College Eastern Oregon University Everglades University Hodges University Lakeland University Lewis-Clark State College Midway University Minot State University Saint Joseph's College of Maine Standish, ME

Page 91 of 110

Enhancing the Value and Efficacy of the USSB 2.0

Trustee Cailee Griffin

Page 92 of 110

History of Students as Stakeholders

Page 93 of 110

What improvements have been made so far?

Progress & Action

Page 94 of 110

Training and Orientation Progress

• After a presentation by USSB members entitled Enhancing the Value and Efficacy of the USSB was given in 2017, board leadership:

– developed a liaison to the USSB

– took steps to develop orientation materials for new Trustees

– encouraged mentor relationships between new and veteran members

Page 95 of 110

Inner- USNH Student Government Council

• Discussion of common issues or concerns among student governments facilitated by USSB members in Concord

• Meets once per semester to share best practices, set goals, and discuss progress

• Encourages cross- system collaboration and awareness at a time when “systemness” is paramount

• Provides an opportunity for student government leaders to relay any major concerns directly to their Board Reps

• Has the ability to function as a strong, student-centered focus group (for example in marketing and admissions discussions)

Page 96 of 110

Ongoing Work Within Campuses

• Encouraged individual student governments to revisit their bylaws and institutional practices to ensure greater training and mentoring for incoming USSBRs

– Example: UNH Student Senate revitalized its student leadership orientation plans

• Encouraged student governments to strengthen student elections

– Promote and track voter turnout,

– Encourage competition by encouraging a larger candidate pool

– Facilitate student campaigning opportunities

Page 97 of 110

How can we utilize USSBRs to their full potential?

Areas for Improvement

Page 98 of 110

Encourage and Embrace Student Perspective

• Encourage active engagement during student presentations

– Understand that students often have a high transactional cost for their time (missing class/ work)

– Understand that students are often nervous and are acutely aware of the experience gap between themselves and their audience

– Encouragement inspires confidence

• Enable the USSB to provide more pertinent insight by reaching out with specific questions regarding student opinion

• Recognize that student updates are also a place for them to elevate concerns that are not already on an agenda

Page 99 of 110

Remember the Value Proposition of Student Perspective

• Students will help the board to be more proactive, rather than reactive, in their approach to student concerns

• They can preempt PR failures and predict reactions of the student body

• Students are versatile liaisons

• Student experience impacts the opinion of other stakeholders including colleagues, family members, potential students, and alumni

• their perspective and experience are especially vital to admissions and marketing endeavors

• Students are a consumer and a product of the university

Page 100 of 110

Incorporate the USSB into Additional Committees

• Appointing students to more than one committee is beneficial for everyone:

– Students are better equipped, and empowered, to understand their respective institutions and their fellow students

– It allows for greater integration and understanding of students’ (our customers’) perspectives in a variety of contexts

– USSBRs will be more effective liaisons to their constituents because they will have a greater sense of the board’s rationale

– Increasing USSBR responsibilities will strengthen the job description and provide a sense of fulfilment for position holders

Page 101 of 110

Incorporate the USSB into Additional Committees

• The appointment of USSBRs to additional committees enables them to participate alongside Student Trustees in non- public sessions of committees like Financial Affairs, Audit, or Governance– This will increase student engagement from all four campuses

which is in line with our synergistic goal of becoming more “system oriented”

– It is critical, especially now, that student representatives from all campuses be privy to sensitive information (especially regarding COVID planning) so that they can share their perceptions and concerns with us preemptively

• Eliminating the information gap between Student Trustees and USSBRs would ensure that Board Reps can more effectively, and knowledgeably, advise the board

• Leadership transitions would improve if the information gap between Student Trustees and Board Reps were eliminated– Better transitions are important for students who serve shorter

terms of 1 year and who often do not have time to be reelected

Page 102 of 110

UNH Graduate School Representative’s Report to USSB Chair Submitted in advance of the June 25-26 2020 USNH BOT Meeting

COVID19 As the administration at UNH continues to grapple with the mountain of decisions that

will determine the nature of teaching and learning environments in Fall 2020 and beyond, new issues have demanded significant attention and resources. We in the Graduate Student Senate thank President Dean, his Cabinet, the Deans, each and every unit director, and all the staff for putting into swift operation new measures to ensure the health and safety of students and everyone else who will return to a campus transformed by this pandemic and our response to it. No one signed up for this, but everyone has shown up to do the work. Thank you!

In addition to the basic risk to individual health presented by the virus, some of the most troubling and seemingly intractable aspects of our society have also been laid bare. In terms of the broader economic and community health effects it has been low-wage and underrepresented minorities who have felt the effects most harshly:

● A recent report from NPR focuses on labor statistics showing that “African Americans are disproportionately likely to be doing so-called essential jobs - in the food industry, working in health services, driving taxis.”

● That same report also notes disparities in government aid to small business owners, with 38% of applicants receiving aid but only 12% of African American and Latino applicants.

● This piece from The Guardian summarizes testimony before a COVID-19 sub-committee that on “minority Americans are more likely to be infected and die from Covid-19, because structural racism has left those populations with inferior health, housing and economic conditions.”

● This report from APM Research Lab gives state-by-state statistics on mortality rates sorted by race and ethnicity. In states with large Native American populations, like New Mexico, the numbers of deaths for those communities are as much as 8 times higher than those reported among White residents, a group 4 times the size of the state’s Native population. Overall, African American deaths related to COVID-19 amount to close to 55% of all deaths nationally, even though the portion of Americans identifying as Black or African American is only 13.4%.

COVID19 and Graduate Students The issues noted above will continue to affect our university in the weeks and months

ahead, and the Graduate Student Senate will be there to provide insight into our constituents’ experiences and to assist by providing our broad expertise and deep commitment to the success and thriving of our university. However, our participation in these issues and discussions is only possible if we are in the room or at least in the loop. With that in mind, we remind our administration:

● Graduate students need to be invited to sit on COVID-19 Planning Teams. ○ The list of teams published mid-May 2020 includes precisely zero students from

either undergraduate or graduate populations. ● Graduate students need to be included in surveys and to have those results reported out.

○ This survey, shared with EdEx in April, mentions graduate students in terms of online enrollments, but does not include any outputs from the survey.

● Graduate students need to be assured of and in their collective role, necessary by definition, in the processes of shared governance that are the foundation of the Graduate Student Senate Constitution.

○ GSS unanimously passed an amendment in November 2019 requiring firmer commitments to shared governance by the UNH administration, specifically asking for “time enough for the GSS to conduct at least two full meetings in order

Page 103 of 110

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/03/868469779/black-americans-bear-the-brunt-of-the-covid-19-pandemics-economic-impact

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/04/coronavirus-black-minority-americans-house-subcommittee

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/04/coronavirus-black-minority-americans-house-subcommittee

https://www.apmresearchlab.org/covid/deaths-by-race

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219

https://www.unh.edu/sites/default/files/departments/coronavirus_covid-19/covid_planning_teams_for_ay20-21.pdf

https://www.usnh.edu/sites/default/files/media/trustees/docs/brd_packets/2020-04-2324/ed-ex-supporting-materials-2020-04-23.pdf

https://www.unh.edu/sites/default/files/departments/graduate_student_senate/DOCUMENTS_RESOLUTIONS/gss_constitution_editable_version_06.01.2018.pdf

https://www.unh.edu/sites/default/files/departments/graduate_student_senate/DOCUMENTS_RESOLUTIONS/gss_constitution_editable_version_06.01.2018.pdf

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GWjPVJslbJe5VkxzmxKklSO4W-SlxwkhQNMSLKRmY/edit?usp=sharing

UNH Graduate School Representative’s Report to USSB Chair Submitted in advance of the June 25-26 2020 USNH BOT Meeting

to review proposed changes, and to hold a vote before responding to those proposals.” We ask this because the absence of a clear understanding of timely notice has resulted in a pattern of non-notice and late notice of significant changes affecting graduate students. At the time of this report’s submission in early June 2020, that amendment has not been approved or denied by Graduate School Dean Moorhead, and so has yet to be approved or denied by President Dean.

As we wrote in the amendment proposal about graduate student participation in shared

governance: “This participation, and therefore the right and responsibility enabling and motivating it, can only be exercised when GSS receives proper and timely notice of, and adequate time to respond to, policy changes affecting graduate students [...].” Priorities have shifted in the past two months, but the foundations of shared governance must not be moved or weakened – they must be fortified and stabilized, and to that end we look forward to a response from the UNH administration. Respectfully submitted, Jacob A. Bennett, Ph.D. UNH Graduate School Representative & USSB Member

Page 104 of 110

1

Status Report – CCSNH/USNH Priorities for Collaboration June 17, 2020

The Community College System of New Hampshire (CCSNH) and the University System of New Hampshire (USNH) share a responsibility to provide the State of New Hampshire and its citizens with access to high quality and affordable education and training programs, in addition to the benefits of research and service, that contribute to effective civic engagement, economic vitality, and social and cultural vibrancy in our communities and across the State. CCSNH and USNH also share a more direct responsibility for thousands of students whose education represents a bridge between the two Systems and among 11 unique institutions. For these reasons, CCSNH and USNH have worked for years to strengthen academic partnerships and to develop articulation agreements that facilitate efficient degree and career pathways for our students.

In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and recognizing the heightened urgency for achieving efficiencies that will allow us to focus increasingly scarce resources in ways that best serve our students and that support our missions, executives from both systems have been meeting to redouble efforts to identify opportunities for collaboration. Working with a short timeline (45 days) to identify areas where meaningful progress can be made, the group first cast a wide net to catalog ideas and then refined that list to prioritize those initiatives that represented the greatest potential for real impact as measured by improved outcomes for students, financial savings, and feasibility. This effort has given rise to four key initiatives that are described in more detail in the accompanying document.

A statement was drafted to describe the purpose of this work, as follows: The purpose of the CCSNH/USNH synergies project is to identify opportunities where collaboration will create operational efficiencies, improved services, and allow New Hampshire’s public higher education systems to focus resources and effort on providing high quality, affordable postsecondary education for New Hampshire’s students, responsive to the current and anticipated economic, civic, and cultural needs of the State, and reflective of the distinct missions of each institution and the important contributions that they make to their host communities and the regions and State that support them.

The first of these relates to sharing expertise and planning in preparation for campuses across both Systems to re-open safely and mitigate risk from COVID-19 this fall. The second focuses on a set of opportunities for better integration of academic programs, initially focusing on Healthcare and Precision Manufacturing, but also serving as a template for broader collaborations in the future. The third seeks to more fully leverage shared IT platforms that have the potential to build bridges, not just between CCSNH and USNH, but to span the lifelong learning needs of New Hampshire citizens from pre-K through 16+. Finally, the last initiative involves procurement and purchasing, capitalizing on shared expertise and combined scale with the potential to achieve significant savings on the range of goods and services required by both Systems. Summaries to date of each of these four initial priority areas are attached.

Executives participating in the discussions: Susan Huard, CCSNH Interim Chancellor Lucille Jordan, President, Nashua Community College Alfred Williams IV, President, River Valley Community College Shannon Reid, CCSNH Executive Director of Government Affairs and Communications Charles Ansell, CCSNH Chief Operating Officer Cathy Provencher, USNH Vice Chancellor for Financial Affairs and Treasurer

Page 105 of 110

2

Melinda Treadwell, President, Keene State College William Poirier, USNH CIO Mark Rubinstein, President, Granite State College

Governing Board Liaisons: Jeremy Hitchcock, Chair, CCSNH Board of Trustees Alison Stebbins, CCSNH Trustee, Treasurer and Chair, Finance Committee Jackie Eastwood, USNH Trustee, Chair Educational Excellence Committee Joseph Morone, Chair, USNH Board of Trustees Rep. Marjorie Smith, USNH Trustee

Governor’s Office Liaison: Mac Zellem, Governor’s Office

USNH Staff Support: Tia Miller, USNH Chancellor’s Office

Page 106 of 110

July 7 Update to Governor – CCSNH/USNH Synergies Priorities

3

Priority 1: Meeting the Needs of COVID Response and Re-opening

Impact Areas: Re-opening all campuses

Discussion Notes: Includes multiple aspects of COVID response and re-opening.

Fiscal Impact: The ability to re-open preserves the institutions’ fiscal impact on NH which is nearly $3B annually. State and federal funds have been allocated to support multiple elements of the re-opening plans (see appendix 1 TBD).

Project Update, July 7, 2020

Current state • CCSNH campuses have re-opened this summer on a limited basis for lab completion. All

institutions are developing Fall re-open plans working in conjunction with DoE. Desired future state

• Both systems, having consulted with Public Health, move forward on re-open plans• Each institution will address campus-specific needs within the frameworks identified

Elements involved • Framework is comprehensive

Timeline • Framework developed (June 2020). Campus-specific preparation will continue throughout

summer in tandem with evolving State and CDC (and other as appropriate) data and guidelines, and respective system offices will house all institutional planning documents.

Other Considerations: • CCSNH and USNH have been allocated funds from GOFERR and CARES Act. Will need to monitor

ongoing costs to determine additional resources needed across duration of public health situation.

Page 107 of 110


4

Priority 2: Learning Management Technology Platform

Impact Areas: Technology Infrastructure, Student Academic Experience, Pathways

Discussion Notes: The intent of this focus area is to achieve robust distance learning capability on a common/shared platform for seamless student learning and progression. We will begin with USNH/CCSNH and look to include K-12 as much as possible through DoE/school district decisions.

Fiscal Impact: Not yet quantified, but we anticipate structural cost savings to result, particularly if we are able to scale with K-12 participation.


Current state • All seven community colleges use one learning management platform (Canvas), which is also

used by UNH and Keene State College. Desired future state

• A joint contract and a common learning platform for remote instruction state-wide. This wouldrepresent a strong partnership across all education sectors to provide a superior experience for students and efficiencies of a shared service.

• Adding K-12 would support a seamless student pathway experience from NH high schools,especially for dual credit students who take college courses while in high school.

Elements involved • We have evaluated current landscape of learning management software, including common

plug-ins for features like lecture capture and synchronous video-based learning Timeline

• We expect contracts for the higher education institutions to be completed in summer 2020,with exploration of staffing synergy possibilities and actual implementation throughout FY21 and FY22.

Other Considerations: • We would like to invite K-12 into this common LMS and have initiated those discussions. Doing

so would enhance the economies of scale and support student pathways, and promote a seamless student experience, especially for all the dual credit students who take college classes while in high school.

Page 108 of 110


5

Priority 3: Common Advising Infrastructure to Support Seamless Academic Pathways

Impact Areas: Improved Retention and Graduation Outcomes, Curricular Efficiency, Retention of Students in NH, Shared Technology Platform

Discussion Notes: Keep more students in New Hampshire by guiding them from community colleges to four-year public institutions along clear, 8-semester academic plans, guided by effective advising that leverages shared technology.

Fiscal Impact: Ultimately, a goal is to increase cost-effective development of New Hampshire’s future workforce through efficient degree pathways that lower costs to students, increase retention and success in academic programs, and retain students within the State of New Hampshire.


Current state • CCSNH students who complete specified high demand Associate Degree programs are too often

either discontinuing their studies or leaving New Hampshire to pursue additional education because of information gaps regarding seamless and more affordable public pathways available to them in New Hampshire, or because of actual gaps in seamless pathways offered.

• CCSNH and USNH rely, primarily, on the same technology platforms to support advising, butthere is currently no student-facing advising resource that allows students to evaluate options or to map degree plans that cross between the two Systems.

Desired future state • CCSNH and USNH faculty will collaborate to identify and to optimize pathways to bachelor’s

degree and graduate-level programs available through USNH that align with the State’s workforce needs. Leveraging a common advising platform between the two Systems will allow students to evaluate educational options across both CCSNH and USNH in order to capitalize on the most cost-effective pathways to achieve their educational and career objectives.

Elements involved • Faculty collaboration, professional advisors, and student information system resources.

Timeline • Work is underway and we will re-engage faculty starting this Fall.• Initial focus of this effort is on Precision Manufacturing and Nursing for which some pathways

have already been developed, which we anticipate completing in the upcoming academic year.• Modeling additional program area discussions after existing collaborations such as the

Humanities Collaborative, to include broader STEM initiatives.• Will prioritize groundwork on adapting the SIS Degree Works to accommodate inter-system

degree planning, allowing time to identify additional areas of academic opportunity.

Page 109 of 110


6

Priority 4: Procurement

Impact Areas: Back-office, Technology Platforms, Contracting

Discussion Notes: Includes IT asset management and other areas for joint procurement.

Fiscal Impact: Not yet quantified, key performance metrics will be developed by 9/30/20. Savings and/or efficiencies will be identified and recognized as processes, skills and technology are aligned.


Current state • In recent years CCSNH and USNH have jointly contracted in some areas (IT back-up data center,

waste management) and explored others. • Most procurement cycles are not in synch between the two systems• CCSNH uses standard form of contract; USNH does not• USNH is rolling out eProcurement technology, CCSNH is not; can look for shared technology

Desired future state • Synching up procurement cycles to enable more joint procurement• Alignment of contract terms and conditions where appropriate• Technology needs and personnel skills aligned where appropriate to enable joint procurement

Elements involved • See below

Timeline • See below

Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

Develop performance metrics to track savings achieved through joint CCSNH / USNH efforts

Share contract inventory to align similar goods / services procured and timing of

expiration dates where beneficial to renegotiate and jointly procure

Share supplier lists to identify joint suppliers in an effort to renegotiate existing contracts Review contract language to align terms and

conditions where appropriate Evaluate and align personnel skills needed to

build out strategic procurement function to serve both systems

Evaluate and align technology needs to support strategic procurement function to

serve both systems

Page 110 of 110

XI....2020/06/25 · instructional design; (2) Create a portfolio of online undergraduate courses...

Documents

Transcript of XI....2020/06/25 · instructional design; (2) Create a portfolio of online undergraduate courses...