1. The institution has in place a functioning institutional effectiveness program.

Mary Washington College has in place a very wide-ranging institutional effectiveness program. For us, institutional effectiveness means that we are engaged in a continuous process of self-evaluation and that we are using the information gained from such a process to help achieve fully the CollegeÃs mission. The areas falling under the institutional effectiveness umbrella are the academic program and administrative/educational support functions. Our new entity, the James Monroe Center for Graduate and Professional Studies, is, of course, in its infancy with respect to the development of degree and certificate program offerings. However, it is fully anticipated that assessment of the CenterÃs academic and educational support functions will occur along lines similar to the institutional effectiveness process which is now in place for Mary Washington College, as described below.

Assessment Of Major Programs - Mary Washington College offers coursework in 32 academic disciplines of which 29 (American Studies, Anthropology, Art History, Biology, Business Administration, Chemistry, Classics, Computer Science, Economics, English, Environmental Science, French, Geography, Geology, German, Historic Preservation, History, International Affairs, Mathematics, Music, Philosophy, Physics, Political Science, Psychology, Religion, Sociology, Spanish, Studio Art, Theatre) lead to the B.A. or B.S. degree while three (Education, Health Education, Physical Education) do not. Each of the 32 disciplines has, for at least the past decade, been engaged in a coordinated and continuous program of student outcomes assessment.

At the very beginning of every academic year, each academic department is asked to submit the name(s) of those faculty members who will be serving as coordinators for the departmentÃs academic program(s). The coordinators assemble as a group four times per year (twice in the Fall semester and twice in the Spring semester) in meetings convened by the Vice President for Planning, Assessment, and Institutional Research, the institutionÃs chief assessment officer. These meetings serve as a means of keeping all departments informed about statewide issues in assessment as well as allowing coordinators to learn from each other about various approaches to assessment that take place across campus.

Each academic program has a statement of outcomes expected to be achieved by their majors. This statement is used as a set of criteria when faculty determine the extent to which students achieve the outcomes set for them. Assessment of the major programs runs over a 4-year cycle during which time each program is responsible for at least three formal assessment activities; viz., one direct measure of student outcomes, one indirect measure, and a survey of program alumni. Over the years, a wide range of activities has resulted. Among the direct measures departments have used are commercially developed examinations (e.g., the Major Field Achievement Test), portfolios, capstone courses, and comprehensive exams. The principal indirect measures employed has been focus groups involving graduating seniors in the various programs, focus groups with program alumni, and exit interviews. When surveys of program alumni are conducted once every four years, alumni will typically be selected who have graduated from the institution three, six, and nine years earlier. The activities and findings of these assessment efforts are reported annually by each program and form the foundation of an annual college-wide report about assessment of the academic program. Copies of the annual report are distributed to all departments across campus. For purposes of illustration, a copy of the 1998-99 assessment report accompanies this Documentation statement. In this regard, it is worth noting that, with assessment in the major programs being the most mature component of our institutional effectiveness effort, many specific actions have been taken as a result of assessment findings. For example, as a direct result of recent suggestions made by graduating chemistry majors in a focus group discussion, the instructional format for the Chemistry Seminar course was modified by the department in order to make it mesh better with studentsà needs and expectations. In another case, based on Spanish studentsà expressions of their interest in applied language courses, Spanish faculty structured a search they were conducting in order to ensure that the faculty member hired would be able and willing to instruct in the applied language area.

General Education ¤ The Mary Washington College faculty adopted its current General Education curriculum several years ago, with the curriculum going into effect beginning with the Fall 1998 semester. During the adoption process of the new General Education curriculum, the faculty also created the General Education Committee. The General Education CommitteeÃs initial charge was to review proposals submitted by the academic departments for inclusion of the course inventory which comprises the General Education curriculum. With the curriculum now in full effect, the principal responsibilities of the Committee are to: (a) monitor the impact that the General Education curriculum has on our students, and (b) ensure that faculty offering General Education courses teach them in a manner consistent with the proposals originally approved for these courses. In order to meet this dual charge, assessment of the General Education curriculum occurs in two very distinctive ways: (1) In-class assessment ¤ Each semester, a different General Education goal area is assessed. This is accomplished by having an in-class survey instrument distributed to students in every section of every course offered in the designated goal area. By the end of Fall 2000, we will have completed the first cycle of General Education goals assessed in this manner. This means that 218 course sections enrolling a total of 6,370 students will have completed goal-specific versions of this assessment instrument. Results are reviewed by the General Education Committee, which in turn informs the academic departments of goal area findings and also takes any corrective action needed to preserve the integrity of the General Education curriculum. (2) Survey Of Graduating Seniors ¤ Every other year, the entire class of graduating seniors is asked to complete a survey covering all aspects of their experience at the College. This survey contains a large set of questions about all the goal areas and criteria around which the General Education curriculum is built. Typically, the surveys are completed by approximately 90% of our graduates-to-be, thereby allowing us to have great confidence in these findings. The results from the General Education sections of the survey are likewise given to the General Education Committee for its deliberation and action.

Academic Program Review ¤ Each academic program at the College undergoes a decennial review of its program, which includes an interim review at the midway (fifth year) point. The review process includes reviewers from other institutions and culminates in a 10-year action plan which details the departmentÃs aspirations in very specific terms. (The 10-year action plan can be modified at the time the fifth year interim review is conducted). Student outcomes assessment results figure very heavily into the Academic Program Review process and thus serve to reinforce the importance of this activity to our faculty.

Alumni Survey ¤ In addition to the surveys sent by academic departments to program alumni, every other Spring semester a survey is conducted of alumni who graduated from the College three years earlier. Questions covered in this survey include, among other things, whether or not alumni are employed in work related to the major program they completed while at the College and whether or not they are engaged in graduate study. Results of this survey are included in the college-wide assessment report referred to earlier.

Transfer Students ¤ Since 1993, we have been systematically tracking annual cohorts of students who transfer into Mary Washington College. Each cohort is analyzed in terms of GPA (both the one theyÃve earned prior to the time when they transfer in and their Mary Washington College GPA), credits completed at the College, and so forth. These results are included in the assessment report each year and, in particular, shared with our Office of Admissions. The Office of Admissions has used this information to sharpen the criteria it uses when deciding to which transfer applicants offers of admission should be extended.

Administrative and Educational Support Functions ¤ In addition to assessment of the academic program, there is continuous evaluation of administrative and educational support functions at the College. Units representing these functions have developed a Mission, Goals, and Objective statement which includes the measures and sources of data against which its performance is evaluated. Each unit is required to submit an annual report which addresses very pointedly the goals and objectives for which it is accountable. In support of the activities of the separate units that engage in the above activities, surveys evaluating the performance of the President, Dean of the Faculty, and administrative and educational support functions across campus are conducted annually. Each of these surveys is sent to all full-time instructional faculty and to all administrative/professional faculty. Survey results are distributed to all members of these two groups, thereby ensuring the widest possible dissemination of findings.

Performance Measures ¤ The College submits to state agencies, on a regular basis, information on a wide variety of institutional performance indicators. These cover such areas as retention rates of our students, percent of the budget used to support the instructional program, fiscal management criteria, and space utilization. These, and other measures, are reviewed against both baseline data and established targets in order to help monitor the condition of the institution.

Planning ¤ The College Planning Committee is responsible for investigating issues which have broad and long-term consequences for the College. This committee has representation from the faculty, administration, classified employees, and the student body. Recently, it completed an 18-month long project which culminated in the development of a strategic plan entitled "MWC Beyond 2000: Preserving the Past, Embracing the Future." This plan has been accepted by the Board of Visitors (the CollegeÃs governing body) and is expected to serve as an overall guide to many College initiatives over the next five years. It is important to note that the entire campus was involved in the development of this plan in that the College Planning Committee received and reviewed over 100 comments and suggestions from all manner of campus constituents. A copy of the "MWC Beyond 2000" strategic plan accompanies this Documentation statement.

2. The institution believes it is substantially in compliance with the Criteria and will be able to document such compliance.

Upon reviewing Criteria sections 1.4 (Conditions of Eligibility), 3.1 (Planning and Evaluation: Educational Programs), 3.2 (Planning and Evaluation: Administrative and Educational Support Services), 4.8 (Faculty), and 6.3 (Financial Resources), the College believes fully that it is in fundamental compliance with the requirements listed in these sections and that documentation supporting such compliance will be available when the College is visited in Spring 2003.
 

3. The recent history (last 10 years) of the institution reveals no known problems of compliance with the Criteria.

Following the last Self-Study (completed in Spring 1993), the College submitted a number of routine follow-up reports to SACS. In January 1996 we were informed that no additional follow-up reports would be needed. From that time to the present there has been no indication that the College is in any way out of compliance with SACSÃ accreditation Criteria. Beyond this, however, lies the fact that Mary Washington College is undergoing a substantive change in that it has established a new entity called the James Monroe Center for Graduate and Professional Studies. While a team from SACSÃ Commission on Colleges visited the College in June 2000, the report of that visit has not yet been received, thereby not allowing us to address immediately any recommendations that that report might contain. With respect to the James Monroe Center, while it has been in existence for only one year, efforts are already underway to establish an institutional effectiveness program which is appropriate to its mission and activities but which also operates in concert with the processes already well-established at Mary Washington College. James Monroe Center Beyond 2000, a strategic plan designed to chart the course of this new campus over the next several years, is included as an attachment to this statement.

4. The institution demonstrates a recent history of financial stability.

The CollegeÃs financial operations are reviewed on an ongoing basis by the CommonwealthÃs Auditor of Public Accounts, the Department of Planning and Budget, and the CollegeÃs own internal auditor (who reports directly to the Board of Visitors). All evidence indicates that to the College is financially stable and that it is being managed in a fiscally sound manner. In order to demonstrate this, a copy of the last report by the Auditor of Public Accounts is included as an appendix to this statement.