TTU Original Statement:

Texas Tech University is in compliance with Core Requirement 2.5.

Beginning in 2001, Texas Tech University implemented an extensive strategic planning process at all levels of the institution and involving all academic, support, and other units. The university strategic plan is available on-line at http://www.ttu.edu/stratplan/universitystratplan.php. Individual area and unit plans are referenced in their responses to this core requirement and are linked to the Strategic Planning and Assessment Report homepage at http://techdata.irs.ttu.edu/stratreport/. These plans, along with links to 2003 assessment reports and area and unit home pages are also accessible at  http://www.irs.ttu.edu/SACSFocusReport/UnitWebLinks.htm.

In 1996, in response to recommendations from the previous SACS reaccreditation campus visitation, Texas Tech University began requiring annual self-assessments at the department and college level. These self-assessments were submitted to the Office of Institutional Research and Information Management, but no other provision was made for their use.   This situation changed with the implementation of the Texas Tech University Strategic Plan in 2001.  Assessment was established as an integral part of the Texas Tech University strategic planning initiative. Annual self-assessment reports are required of all areas and units within the university. Progress toward of achievement of the goals of all constituent areas and units of the institution is evaluated by the next higher level administrators and assessment reports are processed from units to areas and ultimately to the university level. The presidentially-appointed Strategic Planning Council provides oversight of the planning and assessment process.  The bylaws of the SPC may be accessed at http://techdata.irs.ttu.edu/stratreport/docs/BYLAWS_Amended_11-6-03.pdf. The Strategic Planning Council is chaired by Ms. Kerry Billingsley, Director of Quality Service and Professional Development. The membership of the Strategic Planning Council, as of spring 2004, is listed below.

The Office of Strategic Planning is housed in the President’s Office. Strategic planning is directed by Dr. Gilmour Reeve. Dr. Reeve is responsible for administration and facilitation of the strategic planning and assessment process, for maintaining the report calendar, and for providing training and support related to planning and assessment.

Every unit in the university, including all academic programs and all support services, has a strategic plan. Annual assessment reports are required from each area and unit. The reports state the area or unit’s progress toward achieving the goals that were established in its strategic plan. These reports are evaluated by the administrator to which the area or unit reports: For example, the Department of Political Science annual report is evaluated by the College of Arts and Sciences. The College of Arts and Sciences report (which incorporates data from its respective departments) is evaluated by the Office of the Provost. Higher level administrators discuss progress toward meeting goals with their subordinates and suggest strategies for improvement. The strategic planning process uses assessment as a tool for determining the extent to which existing goals have been met, provides for adjustment to goals and critical success factors as needed, and provides data by which existing goals and critical success factors may be modified over time.

This aspect of the strategic plan is demonstrated through modifications that are currently under way to streamline it and to make it reflect the priorities of a new university president. The plan will be simplified by reducing the original nine goals to five.

Reducing the number of goals from nine to five is also an indication that the university’s strategic goal on accountability (Goal 9) has been realized. The university has established an ongoing process of planning and assessment. The Office of Strategic Planning, operating through the Office of the President, coordinates the annual university-wide planning and assessment activities. This process has now been embedded into the administrative reporting structure of the university. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to have a goal for accountability in the strategic plan.

The university is also working toward integrating the budgeting and strategic planning processes. In one of his first actions as President of Texas Tech University, Dr. Whitmore created a Budget Advisory Council, made up of staff, faculty, and student members. This council will advise the President on budget matters. The Director of Strategic Planning sits on the Budget Advisory Council to help coordinate budgeting with the strategic planning and assessment process.

Below is a list of Websites, Strategic Plans, and Assessment Reports for TTU units:

SACS Off-Site Committee Finding:
 

2.5        The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that incorporate a systematic review of programs and services that (a) results in continuing improvement, and (b) demonstrates that the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission. (Institutional Effectiveness) 

___       Compliance
_X_      Non-compliance
___       Did not review 

Comments:   

The evidence presented by the institution in support of compliance with Core Requirement 2.5, Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1, and Federal Requirement 4.1 seems to be missing critical connections. While there are institution-wide, integrated, data-based planning processes built on a well-defined strategic plan with appropriate goals and objectives that are adhered to by all the units on campus, there is no immediately obvious linkage between a particular goal, an assessment method, specific criteria for success, and actions taken to improve. The extensive assessment reports from all the units on campus contain a wealth of specific indicators of success and a lot of raw data, but there appears to be no attempt to interpret the meaning of the data and link them to actions in a way that closes the assessment loop.  Neither does the narrative address how funding decisions are linked to the assessments.
 

TTU Response:  

The Off-Site Committee refers to Core Requirement 2.5, Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1, and Federal Requirement 4.1 in the above comment. We will respond here specifically to Core Requirement 2.5. Our response to Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1 and Federal Requirement 4.1 are linked to the Off-Site Committee’s comments on those specific items. 

Texas Tech University does engage in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes. The Off-Site Committee confirms this statement in its comment. 

The Annual Assessment Reports, that were required after 1996, were based on a simple but effective framework: Each unit (college or department, support unit) established a set of goals or objectives, and assessment methods were established for each goal. For each set of goals and assessment methods there was a “use of results” section in which the unit explained how the assessment results were utilized. Reporting units were able to cite multiple ways in which assessment was used to improve their operations. However, there was relatively little follow-through from the institutional level, so reports were not evaluated. Therefore, there is a wide range in relative quality, from quite good to some units that clearly did not understand the basic principles of assessment. Among the better reports are the Departments of Biology, English, Psychology, Theatre Arts, Chemical Engineering, Museum Science, and Physical Plant. These reports are stored in Adm. 339, in the Office of Institutional Research.  

Beginning in 2002, with the implementation of the Strategic Plan, Texas Tech University’s program reviews have been subject to evaluation and feedback through the Office of Strategic Assessment and the Strategic Assessment Council. We believe these reports do result in continuing improvement and do demonstrate that the institution is accomplishing its mission. The strategic planning process is based on self-monitoring by the various reporting units, which set their own goals, establish critical success factors, and indicate in their annual reports the extent to which they have achieved their goals. All of the goals are specifically linked to the university’s mission—to achieve excellence in teaching, research, and service. The post-2002 annual assessment reports are reviewed at the next highest administrative level to ensure compliance. The second cycle of annual assessment reports is available for the area level (i.e., colleges, divisions, etc.) and the first set is now available for the unit (i.e., department) level. This spring a new round of unit and area reports will be submitted and evaluated. Continuing improvement over the relatively short period during which the strategic planning process has been operating is clearly demonstrated in those reports http://techdata.irs.ttu.edu/stratreport/. Inasmuch as the goals of the strategic plan are directly linked to the institution’s mission, this aspect of the requirement appears to be met.  

Core Requirement 2.5 does not address the issue of linkage between funding decisions and assessment, nor does it address the question of specific learning outcomes for programs and courses. These issues are addressed in our response to the comments under Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.