April 3, 2002

 

Ms. Dianne E. Williams

President

Quinebaug Valley Community College

742 Upper Maple Street

Danielson, CT  06239-1440

 

Dear President Williams:

 

It is my pleasure to inform you that at its meeting on March 8, 2002, the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education voted to take the following action with regard to Quinebaug Valley Community College:

 

that Quinebaug Valley Community College be continued in accreditation;

 

that the College submit a fifth-year report in Fall, 2006;

 

that, in addition to the information provided in all interim reports, the College give emphasis to the institution’s success in:

 

1.    ensuring that the number of faculty is sufficient to offer the academic programs and to carry out non-instructional duties;

 

2. facilitating interactions between the Willimantic and Danielson campuses and providing access to co-curricular activities to all students;

 

3.    meeting physical resource needs, particularly on the Danielson campus;

 

4.    continuing to maintain fiscal stability in the face of funding uncertainty;

 

that the next comprehensive evaluation be scheduled for Fall, 2011.

 

The Commission gives the following reasons for its action.

 

Continuation of Quinebaug Valley Community College’s accreditation is based upon the Commission’s finding that its Standards for Accreditation are being substantially met by the institution.  We commend the College for the strength of its academic programming and support services, which are made possible by the energy and dedication of its well-qualified faculty, staff, and senior leadership team.  The Commission takes very favorable note of the College’s serious commitment to planning and quality management, which appears to pervade every level of the institution.  Finally, we applaud the College for the manner in which it serves successfully as a center for academic, cultural, and economic development in the region, and for managing to do so in the face of serious fiscal constraints.  The institution’s pride in its accomplishments is entirely warranted.

 

Commission policy requires a fifth-year report of all institutions on a decennial evaluation cycle.  Its purpose is to provide the Commission an opportunity to appraise the institution’s current status in keeping with the policy on Periodic Review.  In addition to information provided in all interim reports, the matters to be given emphasis are related to our standards on Faculty, Student Services, Physical Resources, and Financial Resources.

 

The visiting team noted, and we concur, that the College faculty are a particular source of strength for the institution, both in terms of their ability to deliver high-quality academic instruction and their willingness to undertake a wide variety of non-instructional duties; they are clearly dedicated to the “Learners First” principle so central to the College community and they also manage to spend a significant amount of time serving on committees and doing academic advising, well beyond their contractual specifications.  While this is entirely praiseworthy, it also places a serious burden on the limited number of full-time faculty, particularly in view of the fact that they also often teach in more than one discipline and are committed to enhancing the innovative use of instructional technology.  Moreover, with enrollment increases and faculty retirements on the not-too-distant horizon, it is likely that the strains will become even more severe.  We remind you of our standard on Faculty, which states that “faculty qualifications, numbers, and performance are sufficient to accomplish the institution's mission and purposes” and that “faculty are sufficiently numerous to carry out duties in addition to instruction” (5.1, 5.3), and look forward to hearing, via the 2006 report, that appropriate measures have been taken to ensure that the number of faculty is sufficient to support the academic programs and the multiple non-instructional duties.

 

The Commission was pleased to learn of the College’s capacity to offer programs and services in two quite different campus settings at Danielson and Willimantic despite the limited number of full-time staff and faculty, the 35-minute driving distance between the two campuses, and the lack of public transportation.  At the same time, however, we recognize that additional steps need to be taken to facilitate interactions between the two campuses and to provide access to co-curricular activities to all students.  Thus, through the 2006 report, we anticipate learning of the positive efforts made toward responding to these circumstances, in keeping with our standard on Student Services and its specification that:

 

The institution in providing co-curricular services adheres to both the spirit and intent of equal opportunity and its own goals for diversity.  It ensures that appropriate services, facilities, and technology are readily accessible to students in all programs in the institution, including members of historically under-represented, physically disabled, evening, part-time, distance learning, commuter, and off-campus populations (6.2).

 

We note, too, that this growth in two locations, however desirable in many respects, has placed stress on the physical facilities, especially in Danielson.  As the visiting team pointed out, space is at a premium there, and the existing facilities barely meet current needs; there is a shortage of space for offices and records storage, the Learning Center is quite small, and facilities for recreation and student interaction are limited.  Once enrollments increase further, the situation will become critical.  We remind you of our standard on Physical Resources and its requirement that “The institution has sufficient and appropriate physical resources, including laboratories, network infrastructure, materials, equipment, and buildings and grounds, whether owned or rented; these are designed, maintained, and managed at both on- and off-campus sites to serve institutional needs as defined by its mission and purposes” (8.1).  The Commission looks forward to hearing in 2006 of means by which the space needs have been addressed by the College.

 

The Commission applauds the institution’s ability to manage its resources effectively in recent years and to deliver solid academic programs in the face of significant fiscal limitations and uncertainty about the level of continued funding; it has even succeeded in maintaining a respectable fund balance.  Still, however adroit the College may be at allocating its limited resources, we recognize that the situation leaves the institution vulnerable, particularly because, as the visiting team points out, the level of the long-range operational base budget funding from the state remains uncertain and is even projected to decline.  To be sure, such challenges confront all public institutions in the state.  Nevertheless, we anticipate learning in 2006 of measures the College has taken to maintain fiscal stability, in keeping with our standard on Financial Resources, which says “The institution's financial resources are sufficient to sustain the achievement of its educational objectives and to further institutional improvement now and in the foreseeable future” (9.1).

 

Finally, the scheduling of a comprehensive evaluation in Fall, 2011, is consistent with Commission policy requiring each accredited institution to undergo a comprehensive visit at least once every ten years.

 

You will note that the Commission has specified no length or term of accreditation.  Accreditation is a continuing relationship that is reconsidered when necessary.  Thus, while the Commission has indicated the timing of the next comprehensive evaluation, the schedule should not be unduly emphasized because it is subject to change.

 

The Commission expressed its appreciation for the self-study prepared by Quinebaug Valley Community College and for the evaluation submitted by the visiting team.  The Commission also welcomed the opportunity to meet with you, as well as the team chair, Dr. Kathleen Schatzberg, during its deliberations.

 

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

 

The Commission hopes that the evaluation process has contributed to institutional improvement.  It appreciates your cooperation in the effort to provide public assurance of the quality of higher education in New England.

 

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

 

Sincerely,

 

  

Penina Glazer

 

PG/jm

 

Enclosure

 

cc:    Mr. Lawrence J. Zollo, Mr. Marc Herzog, Visiting Team