Academic Affairs

Presented by
Irene Herold, Dean of Mason Library
Robert Madden, Special Collections Librarian
Lucy Jones, College Archivist

Mason Library is pleased to present to the College community for your information and comment the mission of the Keene State College Archives. The first sentence is intended to define the functions of the archive and the archive’s intended patrons. The second sentence places the mission within the context of the college, specifying the topics of the records of enduring value and the scope of the holdings by listing all incarnations of the College.

College Archives have three main functions, one of preservation, another of maintaining information, and finally providing access to the information of the institution. While providing access to information is a familiar function of libraries, preservation and maintenance may not be. Preservation refers to the physical condition of what is placed in the Archive. Preservation would be re-housing fragile materials and capturing information produced on materials or in formats that will deteriorate over time so they will be available for the future. Maintaining refers to the organization and development of the collection. Maintaining in this context involves the creation of records management procedures to ensure that the history of the college is routinely captured and placed where future generations can access the information.

New Hampshire Higher Education Assistance Foundation (NHHEAF) Network Educational Foundation awarded to Mason Library and Franklin Pierce University’s Library a twelve-month joint grant for the creation and implementation of records management at the respective institutions. The grant-funded archivist, Lucy Jones, commenced her work in January. As she works to establish records management protocols for Keene State College, Mason Library is simultaneously developing supporting documents of policy and procedure to formally establish the College Archives. This mission statement is just the first official step in this process.

Keene State College Archives Mission:

The College Archives preserves, maintains, and provides access to institutional records of enduring value as a resource for Keene State College students, staff and faculty, alumni, researchers, and the interested public. In support of the mission of Keene State College, the College Archives is committed to providing access to information about the College’s origins, goals, and programs, including its former incarnations as Keene Normal School and Keene Teachers College.

Tags: academic excellence, academic priorities, access, accountability, alumni by irene // 3 Comments »

I’ve been struggling with writer’s block for the better part of a month as I’ve thought about a number of issues that have crossed my desk. Two issues specifically have been brought to me by others: grade-based prerequisites and departmental admissions standards. Both issues, in fact, have come to me from more than one place. For example, the Academic Standards Committee of the College Senate has been handling an increase in the number of departments requesting higher admissions standards into their majors than the 2.0 required for good standing at Keene State College. The Enrollment Planning Committee has also been dealing with department-based enrollment management. (This is the same issue, really, as departments regulate their enrollments by increasing standards for admission.)

Grade-based prerequisites and admissions standards, both of which are increasing at the moment, are certainly reasonable ways for departments to regulate demand for courses and majors. If we can’t meet student demand, shouldn’t we allow the higher achieving students into their majors of choice over other students.

On the other hand, if access is a core value, then what do we communicate when we agree as a community that a 2.0 grade point average makes a student a member of our community in good standing, but increasingly limit the options available to that student? Is it okay for us to say, “You’re good enough to be a student at Keene State, but your not good enough to be a (insert name of major here).

Some accrediting bodies mandate this approach. NCATE, for example, would have serious problems with our letting a student with a 2.0 GPA sign up for student teaching. Pre-professional programs particularly and frequently declare that a student must be above average to graduate with a specific major. But it’s becoming the norm. My concern is that it’s becoming the norm by default and perhaps not for the right reasons.

As department makes individual decisions about whether to raise admissions standards in particular majors, we don’t engage the College in a discussion of whether this is the right approach for us as a community. It might be the right thing for a particular department, but for a public, liberal arts college that names access as one of its core values? Shouldn’t we at least have the conversation (as difficult as that might be).

As for the reasons behind this increase in tactics that limit progress in a program, is it okay for a department to decide on its own that it has too many majors and, therefore, must weed out a certain number of students? Are there other reasons or better reasons that make this a desirable approach? Are there alternatives to department-based enrollment management that are within our means?

These are difficult and politically charged questions to ask. That’s probably why it has taken me a month to blog about them. Nonetheless, it seems we have to talk about these issues. We have many students with grade point averages below 2.5. What is our obligation to have programs available to them?

I’m actually looking forward to these conversations. Whatever we decide as a community will be better than falling into things because we never talked about them.

Tags: academic priorities, access, students by enetzhammer // 1 Comment »

NEASC (www.neasc.org) had a daylong event in Boston on Tuesday to more or less do a reality check about public disclosure, assessment, institutional effectiveness and, oh yes, accountability. The meeting was equal parts helpful and frustrating. My frustration was with my colleagues who still can’t get beyond what they see as the unfairness of the accountability movement. It’s here, it’s been here, it will be here. (And I don’t think for a second that any leadership changes in D.C. will have a dramatic impact on all this.) We simply must play in this world, and no amount of complaining is going to change that. I’ve vented, and now I’ll move on.

People on campus have asked me about my bulldozer push into the world of assessment. I should note first and foremost that I advocate for assessment because I think it is the right thing to do. I have seen departments and programs reinvented in miraculous ways when the faculty came together and embraced assessment. I think we have a responsibility to measure what our students are learning and how effective all of our units are in meeting the outcomes we set for ourselves.

The external forces are huge here, too. There is nothing inherently wrong in the people who fund us (legislators, taxpayers, parents and students, themselves) holding us accountable. Without a doubt, much of the work on accountability in higher education has failed to consider the goals and processes of higher ed. But the goals are not insidious.

If I’m pushing for better assessment on our campus, it’s because I think it’s the right thing for us. If I’m pushing particularly hard, it’s because of the external forces at play. The Secretary of Education is applying huge pressure for colleges to get their act together around assessment. But in the end, it’s not just politics, it’s pragmatism. Our NEASC visit is right around the corner. We’re fast coming up on the self-study. We need to demonstrate that we have a command of institutional effectiveness and that we are making improvements based on the information we’re collecting. And so we shall.

I think we actually have a solid infrastructure in place. As we’ve prepared for the 4-credit conversion, we’ve revised all of our programs and made them assessment ready. Awesome! We’ve been doing a fair amount already. Much of what we need to do is better coordinating of work we do and institutionalizing these processes. And, of course, people are in very different places around this.

Which brings me to the helpful piece of the NEASC meeting. Demonstration of institutional effectiveness is still largely driven by the institution itself with the guidance of the regional accrediting body (in our case, NEASC). The meeting on Tuesday gave us better guidance and some options. I will write about the Voluntary System of Accountability being promoted by AASCU and NASULGC, but I’m impressed with how the VSA helps us to frame and control the debate. The current report is worth a read (http://www.nasulgc.org/vsa-8-31-06.pdf).

So, we don’t have a choice. That really doesn’t matter because it’s the right thing for Keene State College, and this is the right time.

Tags: academic priorities, accountability, assessment by enetzhammer // 1 Comment »