Final Report of the Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC)
(Originally created as the College Reorganization Committee)
May 2009
Committee Members
Richard Wagner
Clark Germann
Kamran Sahami
Myron Anderson
Donald Chang
John Cochran
Virginia Cruz
Ramon Del Castillo
Marilyn Hetzel
Diane Hollenbeck
Jim Loats
Steve Leonard
Mike Martinez
Ken Phillips
Dorothy Snozek
Johannes Snyman
Ali Thobhani
Michael Wray
Janice Wurster
Erica Yan
Academic Affairs (Chair)
Technical Communication and Media Production (Vice Chair)
Physics (Vice Chair)
Diversity Office, Teacher Education
Marketing
School of Business
Social Work
Chicana/o Studies
Communication Arts and Sciences
Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Mathematics
History
Criminal Justice and Criminology
Industrial Design
Faculty Senate, Teacher Education
Management
International Studies, African and African American Studies
Hospitality, Tourism and Events
Teacher Education
School of Business
Charge to the Committee from Interim Provost Linda Curran
The College Reorganization Committee is charged with proposing academic organizational structures
that would best position Metro State to move forward to achieve its mission and to successfully
implement our strategic initiatives. It is not a forgone conclusion that major restructuring of the current
three schools (LAS, SPS, and Business) is necessary, but any structural problems that can impede
progress toward preeminence should be identified and considered. The College Reorganization
Committee’s work may include the following: (1) suggesting possible restructuring or realignment to
address any problems that may be identified; (2) prioritizing possible solutions that may be proposed;
and, to the extent possible (3) identifying the College resources required to put in place any proposed
solutions.
The Committee's role is advisory. Recommendations produced as described above will be forwarded to
the Provost and President for discussion with the President's Cabinet and Trustees. The emphasis
should be on structural, rather than personnel-related, problems, as procedures and policies already exist
to address personnel-related issues. As the Committee carries out its charge, every effort should be
made to keep the college community informed about its progress.
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 1 of 30
Information Gathering
Committee Meetings: The committee met 21 times between April 2008 and April 2009. At the
meetings, the committee considered various aspects of the organizational structure of the Academic
Affairs Division and processes for evaluating reorganization.
Input from Interested Parties: In April 2008, an article in This Week @ Metro State highlighted the
formation of the committee. At the request of the committee, the Provost sent an e-mail to full-time
faculty encouraging faculty and staff “to discuss ideas and thoughts with their department chairs or
supervising administrators.” In May 2008, the committee solicited input from Deans, Directors, and
Department Chairs. Deans of the three schools met with their department chairs to discuss
reorganization in detail. In July 2008, the committee submitted a progress report. This report was
discussed at the Faculty Senate in September 2008. In order to allow the college community ample
opportunity to provide input, the committee solicited specific proposals dealing with reorganization
from all faculty, staff, and administrators within the Academic Affairs division upon the start of the fall
2008 semester. The requested format for these proposals is included in Appendix A. These proposals
were originally due in October 2008 to allow sufficient time for review, given the original charge to
complete the committee’s final report by November. The committee subsequently extended the deadline
to March 1, 2009 to allow some interested parties time to complete their proposals. This still allowed all
proposals to be reviewed before the end of the spring 2009 semester.
Academic Structure Review Committee Website: The ASRC website, located on the Academic Affairs
website, provided information about the committee’s activities and progress. The website provided an
opportunity for feedback from those external to the committee.
Process for Reviewing Possible Modifications
to the Academic Affairs Organizational Structure
The committee developed and approved a process for reviewing specific proposals for changing the
organizational structure of the division. The committee decided that there is no reason to explore
structures and changes which nobody is proposing. Since the committee’s role is advisory, the
committee’s review and recommendations are not mandatory; changes to the structure might proceed via
collaboration of the Provost, Deans and other constituents without going through this committee.
1. Proposals/Ideas: The committee should start with the proposals for new organizational structures
which some group or individual believes will help the college better fulfill its mission or strategic
initiatives. Some proposals may come from the committee itself or committee members based upon
review of the strategic initiatives.
2. Vetting/Research: The second stage would entail soliciting input from individuals and
constituencies, and gathering relevant information. To encourage participation from those hesitant
to express opinions contrary to those to whom they report, the committee will develop an input form
for which contact information is optional
3. Evaluation: The third stage would entail identifying pros/cons, impacts and costs, intellectual merit,
and other measures of organizational appropriateness (flexibility, accountability, communication,
cross-discipline cooperation, program delivery, shared governance). Major considerations will be
whether the plan advances the College’s strategic plan and strategic initiatives.
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 2 of 30
4. Recommendations: Based upon the elements in the evaluation, the committee would determine
whether or not to recommend the change.
Summary of Input and Discussions
During 2007-2008 MSCD made great progress in faculty hiring, administration and budget stabilization,
thereby advancing the mission of the college. However, any changes in organizational structure should
be viewed in the context of subsequent budget cuts.
Many interested parties expressed the concern that the primary impediments to progress towards
preeminence revolve around the lack of sufficient resources rather than an inappropriate organizational
structure. The lack of staff throughout the division (academic departments, Deans’ offices, Internship
Center, Honors Program, Center for Individualized Learning) was sited as a major barrier to advancing
the College’s mission.
Some faculty were concerned about the size of the School of Letters, Arts, and Sciences. The LAS
Chairs and Dean in general like the current configuration of the school. They believe that it operates
efficiently and meets their needs. The current and past Chairs of Art, Music, and Theatre have long
believed in the value of a School of the Arts. Such a structure can provide significant benefit for the
College with a strong and visible presence to the campus and greater communities. The LAS Dean
agrees with increasing the strength and visibility of the Arts so that they can achieve this vision in the
future.
Alumni and outside collaborators may prefer familiar academic structures that they know and
understand. Separating departments from their existing schools might diminish their value and integrity
from an employer perspective. Employers seek strong schools and departments with good reputations.
The Dean of Professional Studies, in consultation with the school department chairs, suggested that
centers within schools would be an efficient cost-effective way to make more visible the matches
between Denver and Metro State.
The cost to create a new dean’s office would be substantial. The Interim Provost estimated a minimum
of $300,000 per year for the maintenance of such an office.
The administrative changes associated with changes in schools would create substantial one-time
workload for administrative and support, including the redesign of forms and major reprogramming in
BANNER.
An analysis of Metro State’s thirteen NCHEM peer institutions reveals that the number of colleges or
schools ranges from four to ten, with a mean of 6.8. Eight of the thirteen institutions had a separate
graduate school or college (see Appendix B).
Recommendations
In October 2008, Academic Structure Review Committee solicited proposals for specific plans for
changes in the structure of the Academic Affairs Division. To encourage broad involvement from the
Metro State community, the committee encouraged input from those outside of Academic Affairs,
although the structure of other divisions is outside the purview of the committee. The deadline for
submission was set at February 1, 2009, and later extended to March 1, 2009. The committee received
five proposals.
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 3 of 30
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Creation of a new Department of Theatre
Splitting the Teacher Education Department into smaller department units
Creation of a School of Education
Creation of a School of the Arts
Creation of a School of Accountancy
Specific Recommendations
1. The Academic Structure Review Committee evaluated the attached proposal regarding the formation
of an independent Theatre Department. The Theatre Program currently is housed in the Department
of Communications Arts and Sciences (CAS) along with majors in Speech Communication and
Journalism. The proposal clearly laid out the motivation, benefits, logistics, and costs associated
with the establishment of an independent department within LAS. The full proposal is included in
Appendix C.
In November 2008, the Academic Structure Review Committee recommended that a Department of
Theatre be established, and that the Dean work with faculty and staff to implement the structural
change. The committee recommendation is included in Appendix D. A new Department of Theatre
has been established, effective for the Fall 2009 semester.
2. The Academic Structure Review Committee evaluated the attached proposal regarding restructuring
of Teacher Education. In the proposal, the Teacher Education Department (TED) would be split into
three or four separate departments, all remaining within the School of Professional Studies. The
proposal clearly laid out the motivation, benefits, logistics, and costs associated with subdividing the
TED into separate departments. The proposed subdivision is supported by the TED faculty, and the
Deans of the Schools of Professional Studies and Letters, Arts, and Sciences. The full proposal is
included in Appendix E.
In November 2008, The Academic Structure Review Committee recommended the establishment of
either 3 or 4 departments of Teacher Education, to be implemented for Fall 2009. The committee
recommendation is included in Appendix F. After careful consideration of the costs and logistics
involved, the Provost and the SPS Dean agreed to a revised plan for subdividing the Teacher
Education Department into two departments, effective for the Fall 2009 semester.
3. The Academic Structure Review Committee unanimously supports the attached proposal for a
School of Education at MSCD. The elevation of the college-wide teacher preparation program to a
School of Education provides institutional recognition necessary for national pre-eminence and
visibility within Colorado’s education community. This recognition is critical as the College begins
to offer Master’s degree programs to meet the demonstrated high needs of school districts in
our service area. Moreover, having a dean-level administrator who is solely responsible to Metro
State’s large teacher preparation program makes sense administratively and for accreditation
purposes. The committee urges that this proposal be considered for implementation as soon as
possible. The full proposal is included in Appendix G.
4. The Academic Structure Review Committee unanimously supports the attached proposal for a
‘School of the Arts’ at Metropolitan State College of Denver. Potential advantages for the
establishment of such a school include increased visibility, image, and stature, both within and
beyond the Metro State community. A school that unites Art, Music, and Theatre would continue to
propel these programs toward the achievement of national pre-eminence by providing a strong and
united focus with clear structures for fundraising, publicity, arts accreditation, and collaborative
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 4 of 30
activities. Consideration must be given to a budgeting system and resources that recognize the
unique nature of arts programs, assigned additional staffing that can fully support the advantages
listed above, and assigned facilities and space to adequately support such change. The committee
urges that this proposal be considered as soon as possible. The full proposal is included in
Appendix H.
5. The Academic Structure Review Committee suggests that the proposal for a School of Accountancy
existing within the School of Business be thoroughly discussed at the school level prior to
discussions at the institutional level. The full proposal is included in Appendix I.
6. The Academic Structure Review Committee recommends that the Provost or President extend the
charge of the ASRC to continue to meet beyond 2008-09. With the mechanism for review and
protocols established by the committee, major structural changes could be better evaluated. Ideally,
the ASRC might function most effectively as a subcommittee reporting to an institutional strategic
planning committee, facilitating synthesis and consistency. Furthermore, the continued existence of
the committee would provide a forum for counsel on matters of organizational structure for the
incoming Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 5 of 30
Appendix A: Proposals for Changes to the Organizational Structure within Academic
Affairs
The Academic Structure Review Committee is charged with “proposing academic organizational
structures that would best position Metro State to move forward to achieve its mission and to
successfully implement its strategic initiatives”. The Division of Academic Affairs includes units
reporting directly to the Office of Academic Affairs in addition to the Schools of Business, Professional
Studies, and Letters, Arts and Sciences. The committee will evaluate proposals and make
recommendations to the Provost by May 2009. As you develop your proposal consider
Motivation
Benefits
Logistics
Resources
The proposals should include:
1. A description of the proposed change.
2. A description of the envisioned outcomes of the proposed modification, including the impacts on other
divisions or units.
3. A description of the barriers to achieving outcomes inherent in the current structure.
4. A description of the resources needed to accomplish the change. No detailed budget information is
requested.
5. A suggested timeframe for accomplishing the suggested change (e.g. 1-2 years, 3-5 years, 8-10 years).
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 6 of 30
Appendix B: Metropolitan State College of Denver Peer Institutions
Appalachian State College
College of Arts and Sciences
College of Fine and Applied Arts
Walker College of Business
College of Health Sciences and Applied Professions (coming soon)
Hayes School of Music
Reich College of Education
Cratis D Williams Graduate School
California State University-Chico
College of Behavioral and Social Sciences
College of Business
College of Communications and education
College of Engineering, Computer Sciences and Construction Management
College of Humanities and Fine Arts
College of Natural Sciences
School of gradate, International and Interdisciplinary Education
Regional and Continuing Education
California State University –Fresno
Colleges or Schools:
Agricultural Science and technology
Arts and Humanities
Craig School of Business
Kremen School of education and Human Development
Engineering
Health and Human Services
Sciences and Math
Social Sciences
Graduate Studies
Continuing and Global Education
California State University- San Bernardino
College of Arts and Letters
College of Business and Public Administration
College of Education
College of Natural Sciences
College of Social and Behavioral Sciences
College of Extended Learning
College of Charleston
School of the Arts
School of Business and Economics
School of Education Health and Human Performance
School of Humanities and Social Sciences
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 7 of 30
School of Languages, Cultures and World Affairs
School of Sciences and Mathematics
Graduate School of the College of Charleston
Eastern Michigan University
Colleges:
Arts and sciences
Business
Education, Health and Human Services
Technology
Honors College
Graduate School
James Madison University
College of Arts and Letters
College of business
College of Education
College of Integrated Science and technology
College of Science and Mathematics
College of visual and performing Arts
Graduate school
Kennesaw State University
College of Arts
Coles College of Business
Bagwell College of education
College of Health and Human Services
College of Humanities and Social Sciences
College of Science and Math
University College-see separate explanation
Graduate College
Saint Cloud State University
College of Business and Accounting
College of Education, Fine Arts and Humanities
College of Science and Engineering
College of Social Sciences
University of Central Oklahoma
Colleges of:
Arts, Media and Design
Education and Professional Studies
Business Administration
Liberal Arts
Graduate Studies
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 8 of 30
University of Houston-Downtown
Colleges of:
Business
Humanities and Social Sciences
Public Service
Science and technology
University College
University of Northern Iowa
College of business Administration
College of Education
College of Humanities and Fine Arts
College of Natural sciences
College of Business and Social Sciences
Western Washington University
College of business and Economics
Fairhaven College-Independent degree program
College of Fine and Performing Arts
Graduate School
College of Humanities and Science
Huxley College of the Environment
Science and technology
Woodring College of education
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 9 of 30
Appendix C: Theatre Department
To:
Dr. Linda Curran
Provost
From: Dr. Marilyn Hetzel
Co-Chair, CAS & Director of Theatre
With Supporting Statements From:
Dr. Karen Lollar
Co-Chair, CAS
Dr. Joan L. Foster
Dean, LAS
Date: September 30, 2008
RE:
Theatre Department
On behalf of the Theatre Program faculty and staff, and with the unanimous support of all divisions
within the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences (CAS), I am writing to request that the
Theatre Program (which currently functions under the auspices of CAS) be allowed to become a Theatre
Department within the School of Letters, Arts and Sciences. Supporting statements by Dr. Joan L.
Foster (Dean - SCOLAS) and by Dr. Karen Lollar (Co-chair of CAS) may be found at the end of this
proposal.
It is our understanding that broad consensus exists to support this proposal. If this request is accepted,
we hope to function under our new department designation by Fall 2009.
I frame this request under four categories: 1) Motivation; 2) Benefits; 3) Logistics; and 4) Costs.
1. Motivation.
The formation of a Theatre Department is the next logical step in a 20-year development process that led
to the establishment of a BA in Theatre (with BFA concentrations in Music Theatre and Applied Theatre
Technology and Design) in February 2003. With over 150 majors and 40 minors, four tenure-track
faculty members, one tenured faculty member, one exempt theatre production manager, one shared (with
SPE and JRN) classified staff member, and one tenure-track faculty member to be added in fall 2009,
and the ability to produce four major productions per academic year, the Theatre Program currently
holds the critical mass to sustain and enhance future growth.
The recent program reviewer, Dr. Tony Distler, supports the formation of a Theatre Department, and the
ultimate goal of earning National Association of Schools of Theatre (NAST) accreditation.
The Theatre Program’s strategic plan articulates the goal of becoming a Theatre Department. The
Theatre Program would then function as an ‘equal’ with the Art and Music Departments as we work to
foster alliances that will enhance visibility of all the Metro State arts programs, all of which support
President Jordan’s goal of preeminence.
2. Benefits.
The Theatre Department will enhance the image of the program to students and thus, support
recruitment. It will strengthen the program’s image as one being ‘worthy’ of independent status. It will
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 10 of 30
enhance the image of the program as a focused entity within LAS. It will allow the chair to focus on
theatre related issues (such as accreditation) without having to serve three different disciplines with
equal attention – as is the current situation in CAS. It will fulfill the goal of achieving department status
as outlined in the Theatre Strategic Plan. It will reduce confusion; we have the impression that many
people outside the college already perceive theatre as an independent department.
3. Logistics.
The Theatre Program currently has many elements in place that would be necessary for department
status. The Theatre Program has its own degree, its own FOAP, its own course prefix (THE), its own
designated course fees, its own general studies course, lab spaces (both shared and non-shared), and
sufficient faculty members to do department/college committee work. The theatre faculty members are
now clustered in the ARTS 269 and 270 office suites (plus the costume shop and technical director
offices in the King Center). The office suite has a funded copy machine, a fax machine, and a shared
classified staff person who manages theatre course scheduling. The Theatre Program is positioned to
function independent of the CAS Department.
According to Dr. Richard Wagner, there is no need to submit curriculum paper work. The MSCD
catalog would be updated through the Office of Academic Affairs, whose staff would make the minor
catalog and banner changes associated with the new department.
4. Costs.
The Theatre would no longer receive such items as paper and office supplies through the SPE budget,
which traditionally has a greater allocation than Theatre. The CAS budget will need to be adjusted so
that the THE budget can obtain its own office supplies. Our estimated cost for office supplies is
$3000.00.
The program reviewer, Dr. Distler, suggested that productions might be funded with monies other than
those allocated by SAB (Student Affairs Board), but that kind of change is unlikely to occur in the near
future. The Theatre will continue to apply for production funding through the SAB.
Ideally, THE would be assigned its own Administrative Assistant III, which would increase the theatre
budget by the cost of the salary. CAS has been short-handed in terms of administrative staff support for
the past several years. Ideally, there would be one staff member for JRN, one and one-half position for
SPE, and one for THE.
The Theatre chair will require reassigned time, as do all chairs. CAS (including JRN, SPE, and THE)
receives 36 chairs’ hours. The allocation to CAS would need to be adjusted, or additional hours would
need to be assigned to theatre. This would require further discussion. Theatre should be assigned 6-12
reassigned time hours per academic year.
Supporting Statements:
Dr. Karen Lollar, Co-Chair, Communication Arts and Sciences:
Theatre has been planning for the last 20 years to become a separate department. Theatre now has
sufficient students and faculty to support this goal. The other divisions in CAS (Journalism and Speech
Communication) have been aware, and have supported, this goal.
On September 8, 2008, the CAS faculty voted unanimously to support a separate Theatre Department.
Dr. Joan Laura Foster, Dean, School of Letters, Arts and Sciences:
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 11 of 30
I whole heartedly support this proposal to make the Theatre Program into a department. The Theatre
Program has developed to the point that it will thrive as an independent department. I am confident that
it will succeed and grow as a stand alone department. The LAS Chairs agree in that during the Spring
Semester 2008, the LAS Chairs voted unanimously to support Theatre becoming an independent
department. The Theatre Program is already set to become a department in that they have a Chair, a
separate FOAP, their own prefix and program fees. For the time being, they can continue to share an
administrative assistant with Journalism.
Thank you for your consideration of this proposal to establish a Theatre Department by Fall 2009.
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 12 of 30
Appendix D: Proposal to Create a Theatre Department
TO:
Linda Curran, Interim Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
FROM:
Academic Structure Review Committee
Richard Wagner, Chair
DATE:
November 18, 2008
SUBJECT:
Proposal to Create a Department of Theatre
The Academic Structure Review Committee evaluated the attached proposal regarding the formation of
an independent Theatre Department. The Theatre Program currently is housed in the Department of
Communications Arts and Sciences (CAS) along with majors in Speech Communication and
Journalism. The proposal clearly laid out the motivation, benefits, logistics, and costs associated with
the establishment of an independent department within LAS. Broad consensus exists in favor of the
proposal; the new department is supported by the LAS dean, LAS department chairs, and faculty from
CAS including the Theatre faculty.
The Theatre Major with B.F.A. and B.A. options was approved in 2003. Theatre has its own course
prefix, its own budget, and other elements making it currently semi-autonomous within CAS.
Departmental status will facilitate the program’s application for accreditation through the National
Association of Schools of Theatre, and will bring Theatre to an equal footing with Music and Art. The
three departments are working towards enhancing the visibility of the Metro State arts programs.
The committee did not specifically consider a proposal for a School of the Arts in conjunction with this
proposal. The committee considers that the new department is a worthy idea, whether or not a School of
the Arts is established.
The Academic Structure Review Committee recommends that a Department of Theatre be established,
and that the Dean work with faculty and staff to implement the structural change.
cc: Joan Foster, Marilyn Hetzel, Karen Lollar
encl: Theatre Department Memo
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 13 of 30
Appendix E: Reorganization of the Department of Teacher Education
Date: November 1, 2008
To:
Dr. Linda Curran
From: Sandra Haynes
RE:
Reorganization of the Department of Teacher Education
On behalf of the Department of Teacher Education faculty and staff, I am writing to request that the
Department of Teacher Education be divided into 3-4 separate departments within the School of
Professional Studies. Such a division is important in its own right to allow better support for each of
the many programs within the department and is also a first step toward an independent School of
Education complete with graduation programs.
This is an opportune time to make this transition because the department will need of a new chair (with
Lisa Coval becoming the faculty assistant to the dean). Starting in Spring 2009, it is requested that, as
an interim step, TED have “tri-chairs” using 3 existing popular and highly effective leaders within the
department to assume the duties of chair within their areas of influence. The initial division would
include:



Early, Elementary, and Linguistically Diverse Education
Secondary Education and Educational Technology
Special Education, Alternative Licensure, and Reading
This structure will be assessed at the end of Spring semester 2009. If the structure still proves unwieldy,
a fourth division will be made:

Education Technology, Alternative Licensure, Reading
The last addition is comprised of the areas that support all other areas of teacher education as well as
being strong areas in their own right.
Broad consensus exists to support this proposal. If this request is accepted, we hope to function under
our new department designation by Fall 2009.
1. Motivation.
The Department of Teacher Education was originally formed by combining separate departments during
a time of downsizing within the college. The single department became a part of the School of
Professional Studies. The department, however, remains divided into functional and licensure areas
including: Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, Secondary Education, Special Education,
Linguistically Diverse Education, Educational Technology, Reading, and Alternative Licensure (TiR,
CASEL, and ALT). In such a large department with many diverse units it is easy for individual areas to
lose visibility to students and other entities as well of for strengths and needs to go unexpressed. Such is
the case with the Department of Teacher Education. Dividing the department into smaller, more
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 14 of 30
manageable departments would help to ensure that all parts of teacher education are adequately
represented within the college.
Such representation is important for two reasons. First, the current structure does not lend itself to
preeminence. Notably, the teacher education program at Metro State is the largest preparer of teachers
in the state of Colorado. One reason that this is a little known fact is that vital cultivation of external and
internal relationships with constituencies is relegated to two persons, the chair of the department and the
dean of the school. This is a difficult task for either person to do well given their other responsibilities.
The chair is often preoccupied with faculty and student matters. The dean divides her time among 11
very productive and diverse departments. Not only do the responsibilities of these individual interfere
with steady attention to relationships, the vast array of relationship necessary to attend to is very large.
The department deals with approximately 15 school districts, 100 individual schools, the Department of
Education, Department of Higher Education, and the National Council on Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE). The latter four entities have regulatory or accrediting authority and require
extensive knowledge of ever changing standards and a tremendous amount of time collecting and
reporting data, preparing self-studies, and hosting sight visits. Internally, teacher education touches a
majority of major departments. Communication with these departments is difficult but important.
Secondly, there is unanimous support within the department that teacher education become a School of
Education and be among the first programs to offer graduate programs. Again, such moves would put
one of the college’s most important and signature programs in a better position to serve the needs of the
Denver Metro area. The influx of faculty, the development of Linguistically Diverse and Bilingual
programs, development of a first year program that includesreading, and the $9.5 million teacher quality
enhancement grant have all pushed the program toward unprecedented growth. Being relegated to an
existing school is no longer adequate to accommodate the type of growth and recognition that will take
us to preeminence. Because of the demand for teachers and the large number of post-baccalaureate
students, teacher education is very well positioned to become a graduate program with immediate
enrollment and success.
Serving approximately 2,500 students every year with 10 tenured, 19 tenure-track, 8 visiting, and 33
affiliate faculty, 6 classified staff and one administrative staff each new department would still have the
critical mass to support growth.
2. Benefits.
The division of the Department of Teacher Education will enhance the image and visibility of the
individual programs to students and thus, support recruitment. It will strengthen each program’s image
as one being ‘worthy’ of independent status. It will allow the chairs to focus on smaller sections of
teacher education and those related issues without one person having to serve 7 different program areas
with equal attention – as is the current situation in TED. It will fulfill the goal of achieving 4
departments serving teacher education as outlined in the Teacher Education Strategic Plan.
3. Logistics.
The Department of Teacher Education currently has many elements in place that would be necessary for
the division of the department into four separate departments. In the current structure, each program:


has its own course prefix;
sufficient faculty members to do department/college committee work;
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 15 of 30


faculty members are now clustered into groups matching within the TED space in the likely
divisions;
three office suites have funded copy machines.
In the short term, 2 departments would need to share a classified staff person. Lisa Coval would
maintain supervision of the Application Center and the Student Teaching Center in her role as faculty
assistant to the dean.
No changes in curriculum would be needed; only catalog changes in the next academic year.
4. Costs.
The current budget for TED would be divided among the new departments based on FTEf and FTEs as
all departmental budgets are determined in SPS. Two new administrative assistants would need to be
added in the near future so that each department would be served by its own assistant. New budget
codes would need to be created and in place by Fall 2009.
Chairs will require reassigned time in the following manner:

Three Department Model:
o Early, Elementary, and Linguistically Diverse Education
o Secondary Education and Educational Technology
o Special Education, Alternative Licensure, and Reading
21-24
15-18
12-18

Four Department Model:
o Early, Elementary, and Linguistically Diverse Education 21-24
o Secondary Education
12
o Special Education
12
o Education Technology, Alternative Licensure, Reading
12
Note that 60 hours is less than what the department currently receives for administrative tasks.
Supporting Statements:
Dr. Joan Laura Foster, Dean, School of Letters, Arts and Sciences:
I strongly support and encourage the restructuring of the Department of Teacher Education as described
in this document.
Teacher preparation is shared between the School of Professional Studies and the School of Letters, Arts
and Sciences. Consequently I have become quite familiar with the Department of Teacher Education.
The current organizational structure was set up for two reasons, to save money and to eliminate a
position. I am not convinced that the structure of being a mega-department saves a significant amount of
money. The resulting structure still requires 3 classified staff members, multiple copying machines and
significant reassigned time. Thus breaking it into 3-4 departments will not cost much more than
additional chair stipends.
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 16 of 30
The current structure of TED is not the most effective organization for preparation of our 2,500 preservice students and it’s definitely not structured to achieve preeminence despite the outstanding faculty
and administrative leadership. Due to the current structure, the department is deprived of the number of
administrative leaders that are commonly found in teacher education programs. This puts it at a distinct
disadvantage relative to the competing Colorado teacher preparation programs. This structure also
impedes the establishment and maintenance of strong relationships with both internal and external
constituencies.
The proposal of offering graduate degrees in teacher education is important to Metro State’s goal of
leading educational reform in the Metro Denver area. We cannot best serve the local school districts if
we are limited to bachelor’s degrees. Both the local school districts and Presidential nominee Barrack
Obama are putting a greater emphasis on enticing bachelor degree holders to enter into teacher
education while earning a Master’s degree through an alternative program. As an institution, we have to
compete in this climate. Offering masters degrees in teacher education would best be done in the
structure of 3-4 separate teacher education programs within a School of Education.
For all of the above reasons, I am encouraging us to quickly form 3-4 departments out of TED and move
toward a School of Education.
Respectfully,
Joan Laura Foster, Ph.D.
Dean, LAS
Thank you for your consideration of this proposal to establish 3-4 Departments related to teacher
education by Fall 2009.
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 17 of 30
Appendix F: Recommendation for Changes to Teacher Education Department
TO:
Linda Curran, Interim Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
FROM:
Academic Structure Review Committee
Richard Wagner, Chair
DATE:
November 22, 2008
SUBJECT:
Proposal to Divide the Teacher Education Department
The Academic Structure Review Committee evaluated the attached proposal regarding restructuring of
Teacher Education. In the proposal, the Teacher Education Department (TED) would be split into three
or four separate departments, all remaining within the School of Professional Studies. The proposal
clearly laid out the motivation, benefits, logistics, and costs associated with the formation of three or
four separate departments. The proposed subdivision is supported by the TED faculty, and the Deans of
the Schools of Professional Studies and Letters, Arts, and Sciences.
The current department is extremely large and complex, with 37 full-time faculty, six classified staff,
and one administrative staff member serving approximately 2500 students. Dividing the department into
smaller, more manageable departments will facilitate better representation for the different areas and
enhance the visibility of individual programs.
The committee did not specifically consider a formation of a School of Education in conjunction with
this proposal. The committee considers that the split into multiple departments makes sense, whether or
not a School of the Education is established.
The Academic Structure Review Committee recommends the establishment of either 3 or 4 departments
of Teacher Education, to be implemented for Fall 2009. The Dean of SPS should work with faculty and
staff to implement the structural change.
cc: Sandra Haynes, Lisa Coval, Joan Foster
encl: Teacher Education Department Restructuring Memo
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 18 of 30
Appendix G: Proposal for a School of Education – Submitted by the School of
Professional Studies Deans office and the Teacher Education
Department
It is no exaggeration to say that the preparation of high quality teachers is a matter of national
importance. This need is acutely felt in urban areas where classrooms are becoming increasingly
diverse, classroom management more challenging, and the need for a high education is vital to student’s
success in life. Being located in an urban area with a strategic plan emphasizing diversity and
community engagement and being the largest undergraduate teacher licensure program in the state,
Metropolitan State College of Denver is well positioned to become a recognized leader, indeed
preeminent, in teacher education.
Vision
We envision a structure that gives our teacher education programs prominence and leverages current
resources including talented, committed faculty, leaders, a good working relationship with content
faculty and alignment of goals between the two groups, and external funding. In order to accomplish
this, the following steps are proposed.





Divide the teacher education department into smaller, more manageable departments in the short
term
Create dual appointment structure for teacher preparation faculty to establish a formal connection
between teacher education faculty and content area faculty
Develop a Center for Urban Education (CUE)
Determine physical location for school of education
Create and implement structure for a school of education
Motivation
The Department of Teacher Education was originally formed by combining separate departments during
a time of downsizing within the college. The single department became a part of the School of
Professional Studies. The department, however, remains divided into functional licensure areas
including: Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, Secondary Education, Special Education,
Linguistically Diverse Education, Educational Technology, Reading, and Alternative Licensure (TiR,
CASEL, and ALT) with two support offices including: the Teacher Application Center and Student
Teaching Center. In such a large department with many diverse units it is easy for individual areas to
lose visibility to students and other entities as well for strengths and needs to go unexpressed. Such is
the case with the Department of Teacher Education. Dividing the department into smaller, more
manageable departments would help to ensure that all parts of teacher education are adequately
represented within the college.
Such representation is important for two reasons. First, the current structure does not lend itself to
preeminence. Notably, the teacher education program at Metro State is the largest preparer of
undergraduate teachers in the state of Colorado. One reason that this is a little known fact is that vital
cultivation of external and internal relationships with constituencies is relegated to two persons, the
chair of the department and the dean of the school. This is a difficult task for either person to do well
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 19 of 30
given their other responsibilities. The chair is often preoccupied with faculty and student matters. The
dean divides her time among 11 very productive and diverse departments. Not only do the
responsibilities of these individuals interfere with steady attention to relationships, the vast array of
relationship necessary to attend to is extremely large. The Dean of SPS has had to represent TED at
numerous state-wide meetings with the other deans of education. These meetings include the Colorado
Council of Deans of Education, Colorado Literacy review meetings, and Colorado Department of
Education reauthorization meetings, etc. In addition, to state level meetings, the department works with
approximately 15 school districts, 100 individual schools, the Department of Education, Department of
Higher Education, and the National Council on Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). The
latter four entities have regulatory or accrediting authority and require extensive knowledge of ever
changing standards and a tremendous amount of time collecting and reporting data, preparing selfstudies, and hosting sight visits. Internally, teacher education touches a majority of major departments.
Communication with these departments is difficult but important.
Secondly, there is unanimous support within the department that teacher education become a School of
Education and be among the first programs to offer graduate programs. Again, such moves would put
one of the college’s most important and signature programs in a better position to serve the needs of the
Denver Metro area. The influx of faculty, the development of Linguistically Diverse and Bilingual
programs, development of a first year program that includes reading, and the $9.5 million teacher quality
enhancement grant have all pushed the program toward unprecedented growth. Being relegated to an
existing school is no longer adequate to accommodate the type of growth and recognition that will take
us to preeminence.
Benefits
Improve functioning
The school of Education will enhance the image and visibility of the individual programs to students and
thus, support recruitment. It will strengthen each program’s image as one being ‘worthy’ of independent
status. It will allow the chairs to focus on smaller sections of teacher education and those related issues
without one person having to serve 12 different licensure program areas with equal attention – as is the
current situation in TED.
Promote teacher education at Metro
Currently, in the state of Colorado most intuitions that grant teacher licensure have a school of
education. The creation of a school of education will place Metro State’s teacher education programs on
a level playing field with the other institutions.
Logistics
The Department of Teacher Education currently has many elements in place that would be necessary for
the creation of a school of education. In the current structure, each program already:



has its own course prefix;
has adequate faculty members to complete department/college committee work;
has faculty members clustered into groups matching potential departmental divisions;
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 20 of 30



has updated, solid curriculum;
has accreditation;
has physical office space for departments located within West Classroom.
In order to create the school of education, the following logistical items would need to be addressed:


space for a new Dean’s office
support staff for the Dean’s office (administrative assistant and budget manager)
Costs
The budget needs for the creation of school of education should not be immense. The Center for Urban
Education will be grant funded at the onset; therefore, there will be no initial cost for this center. The
following would be needed:





Space for the dean’s office
Budget for the dean’s office
Salaries for a dean of education, administrative assistant and budget manager
Reassigned time for department chairs
Administrative assistant(s) for each department
Steps and Implementation Dates
1. Divide the teacher education department into two departments with one chair for each department
(Fall 2009)
2. Obtain grant funding for the development of a Center for Urban Education (CUE) (Summer 2009)
3. Create dual appointment structure for teacher preparation faculty to establish a formal connection
between teacher education faculty and content area faculty (Fall 2010)
4. Establish the CUE (Fall 2010)
5. Determine physical location for school of education (Spring 2010)
6. Create and implement structure for a school of education (Fall 2010)
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 21 of 30
Appendix H: Vision for the Arts at Metro State – Submitted by the Departments of
Art, Music, and Theatre
Our vision for the Arts at Metro State over the next decade is as follows:
We believe that by building upon the credible talents and successes that the arts programs at Metro State
have had in the past decade, we can position ourselves as the preeminent arts school in the region over
the next decade. Such growth will position us locally, nationally, and globally as a preeminent arts
provider for both undergraduate and graduate education students. Our vision includes the following:



Restructure the arts at Metro State into a School or College of the Arts.
Address new and existing programmatic space needs including usage of the King Center.
Define graduate programs suitable for Metro State.
Restructure the Arts at Metro State into a School or College of the Arts
In that Metropolitan State College of Denver is evaluating a level of academic reorganization to promote
pre-eminence in student learning, the Departments of Art, Music, and Theatre propose the establishment
of a School of the Creative and Performing Arts.
1. Motivation




In the current academic year, each of the arts departments has engaged in the program review
process. External reviewers unanimously support our proposal.
The arts are essential to Metro State’s vision for preeminence. A strong college requires a strong
arts program, because the arts are a core element of human understanding.
The alignment of the disciplines of art, music and theatre would promote, through a unified
presence, the significance and the considerable contributions of the arts to the college and greater
communities. This alignment would also enable us to compete directly with other higher
education arts programs similarly configured throughout Colorado and the nation.
Once aligned, the disciplines will have greater opportunity to function together within an
appropriate conceptual space (see below). Enabling collaboration across disciplines appeals to
the new entrepreneurial generation of artists, while retaining core traditions in art, music and
theatre. Alignment of the arts could also support selected HSI initiatives.
2. Benefits
A. Prepare students for success in their education, career and life.
The School of the Arts will provide current and prospective students comprehensive
informational resources across the arts disciplines to assist them as they navigate their
educational careers.
B. Provide a high-quality educational experience.
Given the history and development of art, music and theatre as programs of excellence, the
collaborative alignment of these disciplines will magnify individual successes.
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 22 of 30


This quality will be validated through aligned external accreditations.
The scope and quality of the arts programs would enjoy increased visibility and recognition
through development of a unified “brand” for the Arts at Metro State.
C. Engage, collaborate and work with the community.
Within each program a substantial history of successful initiatives already exists. The programs
will be able to focus their efforts in the following areas:



fundraising, grant writing and community program sponsorship;
establishing a competitive institutional image;
providing cohesive relationships with the community through the conduit of the School of
the Arts
D. Embrace and promote diversity.
The Arts embody the core value of inclusiveness. We value and celebrate everyone’s differences
while we search for and embrace everyone’s universal commonalities.
3. Logistics
The Art, Music, and Theatre Departments currently have many elements in place that would be
necessary for School status. The programs have a variety of successful degrees, faculty, and
recognition as programs of excellence. Curriculum is strong and healthy.





Space needs must be addressed, including space for a new Dean’s office, support spaces, and
additional faculty and staff studios.
The programs must be situated in close proximity to one another in order to integrate curriculum
and visibility of Metro State’s arts programs.
An Arts Dean and support staff (arts fundraiser, publicist, budget manager, and additional events
staff) would need to be identified.
Leadership, governance, and steerage of the King Center for the Performing Arts must be
addressed. Conversations should include executive and chairs from UCD and CCD.
Other campus departments should have the opportunity to be included in the proposal if they so
desire.
4. Costs
It would be impossible to put a number on costs at this time because of a variety of factors:



Space is an essential consideration. Currently, demand for our programs far outweighs capacity.
Our current facilities in the Arts Building are overtaxed, broken, and inadequate. Program
review and accreditation consultants corroborate this perspective.
Remodeling the Arts Building was the top priority for the Auraria campus in 2000-2001, until
the state underwent a budget crisis and withdrew funding.
Space needs go beyond those of a general classroom building. Examples including HVAC needs
for Art, and soundproofing for Art, Music, and Theatre.
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 23 of 30


Appropriate staffing of the King Center must be addressed, either through Metro or via all three
institutions. The King Center is currently understaffed for a professional performing arts facility.
Staffing must also be included for the new building.
Salaries for a Dean, Associate Dean, and support staff must be included.
Address new and existing programmatic space needs including usage of the King Center
An integrated School of the Arts must serve as a gateway to the community. Space for the arts should
provide a presence for the face of the arts at Metro State.
Existing facilities are inadequate. This issue should be addressed by the following:
1. Move as many arts programs into the King Center as soon as possible. However, please note that the
King Center cannot fulfill all of the arts needs. Until a new building is constructed, the arts
programs may use the King Center and the existing Arts Building simultaneously.
2. Re-allocate existing classroom space in the King Center in order to create needed classroom and
rehearsal space. This may include ensemble rehearsal space, practice rooms, and standard
classrooms.
3. Construct a new arts facility to physically connect the King Center to the new Metro Neighborhood
to provide contiguous arts space for Metro State. This space would provide a badly needed presence
for the arts at Metro. Ideally this space would be “building two” of the proposed Metro
Neighborhood.
4. The presence of visual arts within or adjacent to the King Center should be an issue addressed by
architects.
5. We should examine models at other institutions of higher education such as the Arizona State
University Herberger College of the Arts.
6. Our assumption is that Metro State will retain all currently allocated performance space for Music
and Theatre in the King Center, as well as the addition of the fourth floor as office/studio space for
Music and Theatre.
7. The new arts facility would include the following:
a. Space for all of the visual art needs (including moving current arts programs as well as new
space)
b. Space for a new Dean and Associate Dean of the School (College?) of the Arts
c. Black box theatre with green room and dressing rooms
d. Shared program spaces for music and theatre productions such as opera and music theatre
e. An additional recital hall
f. Rehearsal room
g. Additional music/dance studio
h. Dedicated arts storage space
i. Lighting lab
j. Scenic, props, paint, metals, and costume shops to support new performance spaces
k. Recording studio
l. Ballroom/reception space for arts reception and fundraising functions, colloquia, lectures, etc.
m. Lobby/art gallery space for cross-promotion of Metro State arts
n. Metro State box office for all performing arts functions
o. Dock facility for load-in and load-outs for arts events
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 24 of 30
p. Other needs to be determined
8. Staffing for this new facility must be included in space planning.
9. Prominent signage should be provided for all Metro State arts facilities and programs.
Define graduate programs suitable for Metro State
The chairs and faculty of the arts departments strongly support exploring the feasibility of offering
graduate programs at Metro State. The art, music and theatre departments serve a unique role in the arts
in the seven county Denver area.
Art: There are MFA programs in studio art; however, they do not offer the breadth that could be offered
by our art department, and there are no master’s programs in art history/critical theory at any public
institution in Denver, and no PhD program in the region.
Music: A master's degree in music education is not offered by any school in the Denver area, and
master’s degrees in performance would also solve significant needs of students.
Theatre: Only four MFA's in musical theatre exist in the United States. There are no MFA programs in
technical theatre in Colorado.
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 25 of 30
Response to Questions Posted By the Structural Review Committee
1. Have you looked at other institutions?
State examples of similar structures include:
University of Colorado: College of Music
University of Northern Colorado: College of Performing and Visual Arts
Colorado State University: School of the Arts
Regional example of similar structures include:
University of Kansas: School of Fine Arts
University of New Mexico: College of Fine Arts
Arizona State University: College of the Arts
Each school has developed an organizational structure to suit its unique needs, and we feel that this
structure would meet the needs of the arts at Metro State.
The establishment of a Metro State School of the Arts should not be contingent the acquisition of a
new arts building. We believe that both can be accomplished in the next 5-10 years.
Please note that CUPA institutions should not be the only point of comparison for our arts programs,
given the fact that Metro State arts programs seek preeminence and tend to compete directly with
institutions of the caliber listed above.
2. Projected revenue sources
Our research has shown that the revenue sources for the School of LAS are wide and varied. We
project that our revenue sources would be base funding, program fees, student fees through the
Student Activities Board allocation, and institutional advancement.
3. Center for Visual Art (“CVA”)
The CVA is already embedded in Metro State’s Art Department. Purchase of the building is planned
for this spring, and the CVA will continue to operate as Metro’s downtown flagship.
It should also be noted that the King Center for the Performing Arts is integral to the success of
Metro’s music and theatre programs, analogous to the relationship of CVA to the art program.
4. Organizational Chart
Departmental structures will remain the same as are currently in place. As mentioned above,
Salaries for a Dean, Associate Dean, and support staff must be included. Support staff may include a
budget analyst, a fundraiser, additional events staff, and a dedicated publicist for the arts in addition
to staff currently in place in the departments.
5. Sample Timeline
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 26 of 30
Fall 2009
Initiate planning for transitional move of selected arts programs to the King
Center
Fall 2009-Spring 2010
Initiate planning for specific structural elements of Metro State’s School of
the Arts
Fall 2009-Spring 2010
Initiate curriculum planning for Master’s Degrees in all three arts disciplines
Fall 2009-Spring 2010
Develop job descriptions for leadership and staff positions, and embark on
hiring process for key leadership positions
Summer 2010
Move key selected arts programs to the King Center
Fall 2010-Spring 2011
Continue to bolster current arts programs with funding for staff and
equipment so that development into a School of the Arts can take place
smoothly
Fall 2011-Spring 2012
Make preliminary plans for new School of the Arts facility
Fall 2011-Spring 2012
Develop job descriptions for administrative and support staff
Fall 2012-Spring 2013
Finalize funding, positions, staff structures
Fall 2013-Spring 2014
National searches for administrative and other staff
Fall 2014
School of the Arts become a reality
Fall 2017
School of the Arts moves to new facility
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 27 of 30
Appendix I: Proposal – Name Change to “School of Accountancy”
The Current Department of Accounting, a division of the School of Business, desires to change its name
to the School of Accountancy. This proposal is contingent upon the passage of HB-1295, a bill
currently in the Colorado Legislature allowing Metro State to offer master’s programs.
Motivations & Benefits:
1. The impending master’s program initiative is the primary motivation. With the Master’s of
Professional Accountancy (MPAcc) ultimately in place, three programs of study will be offered.
The baccalaureate program will remain, and the service courses for the School of Business,
ACC2010 and ACC2020, i.e. Principles of Accounting I and II, will remain intact also.
“School of Accountancy” is a better descriptor of an academic unit providing multiple tracks of
study with a professional orientation and is common throughout the academic accounting
community.
The tracks or concentrations within the MPAcc are outlined in the graduate proposal requested by
and presented to President Jordan:
a) Forensic Accounting & Fraud Investigation,
b) Taxation, and
c) Accounting and Assurance Services.
2. For external funding and naming rights purposes, “School of Accountancy” offers a greater
opportunity than “department.” Schools and colleges are named, not departments. Examples
include Patterson School of Accountancy at University of Mississippi, Leventhal School of
Accountancy at University of Southern California, Fisher School of Accountancy at University of
Florida, and the Culvershouse School of Accountancy at Alabama.
3. Metro State’s accounting programs should be labeled on par with in-state institutions with similar
teaching outcomes: the School of Accounting at University of Northern Colorado and the School of
Accountancy at DU.
4. With the Colorado Board of Accountancy, a division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies,
proposing 150 semester hours for CPA licensure, better branding as a “School” will enhance
marketing of our professional school programs.
Internal Leadership Structure of the School of Accountancy:
Leadership will consist of a Director and two coordinators; one graduate coordinator and one
undergraduate coordinator.
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 28 of 30
a. The Director will lead the School concerning its external constituencies and partnerships. The
Director will spend 2 – 5 days and/or nights weekly in the business community. The Director will
focus on strategic planning and outcomes. This includes faculty recruiting, staffing and retention.
b. The Graduate Coordinator will be responsible for graduate recruiting and admissions, graduate
advising, graduate discipline matters, and commencement hooding.
c. The Undergraduate Coordinator will be responsible for undergraduate advising in conjunction with
the MSCD advising office and course scheduling and Principles I and II coordination.
The leadership team will be supported by two administrative assistants: one for graduate programs and
one for undergraduate programs.
Resources to support the leadership:
a. The Director will be required to teach one class per year as does the current department chair. The
stipend will be at least that of the chair.
b. The program coordinators will teach 2 class sections per semester. Stipends should be about $3,000
annually.
Time Frame:
Name-change should be effective no later than the beginning of academic year 2010 - 2011.
This assumes that if the MSCD master’s program initiative passes the Colorado Legislature and is
signed by the Governor, then the launch of the first phase of graduate courses will occur Fall Semester
2010.
However, Fall 2009 implementation of the name change will present a phase-in-period for marketing,
recruitment and refinement.
Logistics:
The School of Accountancy may remain within the administrative structure of the MSCD School of
Business. However, resource allocation must take into consideration that the School of Accountancy
actually contains two academic units: Undergraduate programs and graduate programs.
It is not uncommon throughout the country to have a School of Accountancy housed within a School of
Business. For example, the Oklahoma State University School of Accounting is a unit of the Spears
School of Business of Oklahoma State University.
Outcomes of the Change:
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 29 of 30
1. Enhanced respectability among the practicing accounting profession and academic accountants.
2. Ability to join the Federation of Schools of Accountancy (FSA): the organization that supports and
promotes professional education in accounting and the 150 semester hour minimum for entry into
the practicing profession.
3. Ability to apply for separate accounting graduate and undergraduate accreditation by the AACSB
International.
Academic Structure Review Committee (ASRC) Final Report
Page 30 of 30