INTRODUCTION

On 13-15 October 2004, an Evaluation Committee representing the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) visited Idaho State University (ISU) in Pocatello , Idaho , to assess the University for reaffirmation of accreditation. The Committee consisted of fourteen members, with the Deputy Executive Director of the Commission providing staff assistance as an ex officio member. The Committee extends deep appreciation for the courtesy and hospitality shown by the University community during the visit. The University people with the responsibility made certain that the Committee had all the support and access to information necessary to the completion of its work.

History

Idaho State University, a public institution of higher education chartered statutorily in 1963 by the State of Idaho to provide “instruction in undergraduate, professional, and graduate education,” began in 1901 as the Academy of Idaho, became the Idaho Technical Institute in 1915, merged as the Southern Branch of the University of Idaho in 1927, and became Idaho State College in 1947. Starting in 1927 with the School of Pharmacy , ISU has developed the array of programs in health care and health science fields to earn role differentiation, initially in 1983, by the Idaho State Board of Education – (SBOE) the governing board for public higher education in Idaho – for “primary emphasis on health-related professions and the related biological and physical sciences.” The University’s approved 1983 Mission Statement reaffirmed the primacy in health-related professions and a “continuing mission” in education, business, and engineering, and designated ISU “as a national center for the doctor of arts degree programs.” In 1998, 2002, and 2004, the SBOE reaffirmed this tripartite role and mission, charging the University to “maintain basic strengths in the liberal arts and sciences” as well so as to “provide the core curriculum or general education portion of the curriculum.”

Accreditation Summary

Initially accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges in 1954 for the standard period of ten years, ISU has maintained continuous accreditation for fifty years. Over the interim, the University has continued to develop distinctive programs and emphases in health care and health-related fields, while also fulfilling its mission in education – especially teacher preparation – business, and engineering, and as a national center for delivery of the Doctor of Arts. The last full-scale evaluation in 1994 resulted in reaffirmation of accreditation for ten years with the standard interim report and visit scheduled to occur in 1999. The 1994 Evaluation Committee made six recommendations for improvement, and the report of the 1999 Evaluator – a member of the 1994 Evaluation Committee – indicated that the University attended in good faith to all six recommendations. On the basis of the Evaluator’s report, the Commission reaffirmed accreditation until the next full-scale visit in 2004.

Recommendation 1:

Initiate a process of formal planning that involves and informs the university community and addresses issues of specific concerns and needs as well as short- and long-term goals in enrollment growth and limitations, new program development, faculty development and workload, facilities and equipment, adequacy of support staff, alternate revenue sources – all in a climate of limited resources.

EVALUATOR RESPONSE: The University has an approved strategic plan that satisfies the recommendation.

Recommendation 2:

Take immediate action to evaluate academic computing services recognizing that a distributed academic computing model is already a fact at Idaho State University , that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the existing structure and that academic computing resources are unequally distributed. Consideration should be given to placing the direction of this evaluation effort under an outside evaluator.

EVALUATOR RESPONSE : The University has made good progress despite the scarcity of funds toward a more equitable distribution of academic computing resources across the campus. An outside consultant has been identified to develop an action plan for implementation.

Recommendation 3:

Place a much higher priority on increasing salary and benefit levels and specifically address the issue of salary compression between ranks.

EVALUATOR RESPONSE : While salaries remain low in the State of Idaho , the University has addressed the compression issue. In addition, the State of Idaho and the SBOE has made improvements to the benefits package.

Recommendation 4:

Continue to emphasize active and coordinated recruitment of ethnic minorities – and women in some departments – to increase diversity of the student body and of faculty and staff.

EVALUATOR RESPONSE : While ISU’s location in southeastern Idaho contributes to the challenge of recruiting a diverse student population, the University has made good faith efforts with limited success. On the other hand, the University has made good progress in the recruitment, retention, and promotion of female faculty members.

Recommendation 5:

Make it a priority to continue to identify the funding to bring its facilities, services and programs into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504.

EVALUATOR RESPONSE: The University has achieved “substantial progress” in satisfying this recommendation.

Recommendation 6:

Work with the Idaho Board of Education to review the mission of the institution since it has been over ten years since it was initially developed.

EVALUATOR RESPONSE : The University proposed and the SBOE approved a new mission statement in 1998 that reflects the programmatic role and development of ISU.

Eligibility Requirements

The University continues to satisfy the twenty Eligibility Requirements as revised and approved by the Commission on Colleges and Universities of the Northwest Association of Schools and of Colleges and Universities in December 2000 and reaffirmed by the NWCCU in 2002.

Self-Study Report

The Committee found the Self-Study Report informative but overly brief, at times dense, and redundant because of a strict adherence to the outline in the Accreditation Handbook; occasionally misleading, for example by including service and other projects in the volume of funded research; lacking the salient details essential to facilitate reader comprehension of the issues; and insufficiently analytical to support institutional self-criticism. As a particularly relevant example, the analysis of outcomes assessment did not provide the detail necessary to an understanding of the University’s progress in assessment. As well, the discussions of planning at times failed to guide the readers through the complexities of interrelated procedures. On the other hand, the exhibits provided most of the information deemed essential to inform the Committee for the campus visit. University representatives responded to all requests for additional information and readily made themselves available for individual and group discussions.

The University took care to assure broad campus involvement in the self-study process under the oversight of a Steering Committee, appointed by the President, that worked through subcommittees including faculty, staff, and students. The Steering Committee maintained open communications and included people and commentary from the entire campus community. The Report itself stated that the Committee found it difficult to meet the time lines because of critical changes in personnel and other problems. As a result, in the collective view of the members of the Evaluation Committee, the Self-Study Report did not fully meet the needs of the accreditation process or the University for critical assessment and improvement.

Methodology

The Evaluation Committee reviewed the Self-Study Report prior to its initial meeting in Pocatello on 12 October 2004 . In addition, the members analyzed the sufficiency of the listings of other documentary materials assembled by the campus. On the basis of this review and discussions, the Committee members identified additional documentation needed and established an interview schedule for individuals and groups on and off campus. The campus representatives complied in all respects with every request and also attended to accommodations and equipment needs as communicated by the Committee.

Following extensive review and analysis, each member of the Committee drafted assigned sections of the Evaluation Report and submitted the drafts to the Chair at the close of the visit. The Committee agreed unanimously on its Commendations and Recommendations and reached consensus on the Confidential Recommendation to submit to NWCCU concerning accreditation for the University. The Committee members also counseled the Chair concerning the outline of the oral report to the campus during the Exit Conference. Finally, the Chair met with and informed the President of the Commendations and Recommendations in advance of the Exit Conference.

After the campus visit, the Chair integrated the various sections into a first full draft of the Evaluation Report, retaining the substance of the sections prepared by individual members of the Committee while seeking to give the Report a single voice for effective communication. The Chair then sought comments from the Committee members, made the necessary revisions, and forwarded the penultimate draft to the President of Idaho State University for correction of factual errors. Upon receipt of the corrections, the Chair finalized the Report, circulated it to the members of the Committee for review and possible revision, and submitted it to the Commission in accordance with established procedures.