/,'\

! \ i . l i ~ ~· ; ~ :. -·! }

;:. i ·:;: 1~·di t1H~

r} 1·1u1 ,e l / 3.JJ4.l :.:.0() 77J .:.:: '.:(.7'2 iU

November 24, 2014

Ann Weaver Hart

President University of Arizona

Old Main, Room 200 1200 E. University Boulevard

P.O. Box 210021

Tucson, Arizona 85721-0066

Dear Dr. Hart:

On behalf of the Planning Accreditation Board (PAB), I am pleased to inform you that the Board acted at its October 31- November 2, 2014, 2014 meeting to accredit the Master of Science in Planning degree at the University of Arizona for a three-year term, effective January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017. A certificate designating this accreditation term will be mailed under separate cover.

In its report the Site Visit Team noted many areas of excellence; the Program should

be proud of its accomplishments. More specifically, the Site Visit Team found:

impressive interaction with other design professions in the college; and strong support and engagement with the professional community via the Friends of

Planning organization. The Program is at a point of transition, however, with several new faculty and one unfilled line. The Board is confident that once all the faculty are fully integrated into the Program, the challenges detailed below can be fully addressed.

Given this action, the Program will be scheduled for its next accreditation review

during the 2016 - 2017 academic year; the Self-Study Report will be due in 2016. PAB reserves the right to change this to an earlier time as a result of new or additional information, changes in the activities of the Program, or changes needed in the accreditation review schedule. The Program will be notified of any change in

advance of the time of the next review.

In its future Self-Study Report, the Program should clearly provide evidence of compliance with the following Standards and criteria:

Standard 3 / Faculty Criterion 3A / Faculty Quality "The faculty of the Program shall be appropriately qualified to serve the Program's mission and shall be capable of executing the Program's goals and objectives, particularly as they pertain to teaching, research, and service. The Program shall employ faculty with the focus, commitment, teaching ability, and qualifications in planning sufficient to prepare graduates to enter professional planning practice in diverse occupational and institutional settings."

The Site Visit Team assessed this criterion as partially-met, citing: only one tenured and one tenure-track faculty member at the time of the Site Visit; the lack of clarity with regard to criteria for promotion and tenure - particularly relettt"!d to

scholarship; and the lack of any fulltime or adjunct teaching faculty with credentials from the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP).

The Board concurs with this assessment while acknowledging the Program's recent hires, one of whom is an

AICP Fellow. In its future Self-Study Report the Program should provide evidence that all open faculty lines have

been filled with qualified t eaching faculty.

Standard 3 / Faculty Criterion 3B / Faculty diversity "The Program shall foster a cl imate of inclusivity that appreciates and celebrates cultural differences through its recruitment and rete ntion of facu lty members. Faculty shall possess, in the aggregate, characteristics of

d ivers ity (e .g. , racial and ethnic backg rou nd ) that refl ect the practice settings w here graduates work or where professional needs exist in t he Program's region of recruitment and placement. Notwithstand ing, the demographic mix is not a static concept, and all planning programs should seek to be in t he forefront of a

d iverse society."

The Site Visit Team assessed this criterion partially-met, citing a lack of both gender and racial diversity and a recruitment strategy focused not on diversity, but on particular curricular needs.

The Board concurs with this assessment, while appreciating the primacy of curricular needs in faculty staffing, and understands that in the current search emphasis is being placed on minority recruitment. In its future Self­

Study Report the Program should provide evidence of its efforts to e)(pand faculty gender and racial diversity.

Standard 3 / Faculty Criterion 3C I Faculty Size "The facu lty shall be of a sufficient size to accompl ish the Program's mission and goals, administe r the

Program, and teach the curriculum. The Program shall have a faculty of such size that the fuil-time faculty are able to teach the core curriculum and direct all a reas of specialization."

The Site Visit Team assessed this criterion as part ially-met, citing a lack of core tenure-track faculty at the time of the Site Visit.

The Board concurs with this assessment, while acknowledging the Program's success with recent hires. While

sufficient faculty size can be met by a combination of fulltime, part-time and/or adjunct faculty, the presumption is that the foundation of the core curriculum will be taught primarily by fulltime faculty. In its

future Self-Study Report the Program should provide evidence that the fulltime faculty have predominant responsibility for teaching the core curriculum.

St andard 4 / Curriculum Criterion 4A1(f) I Global Dimensions of Planning "The Program shall offer a cu rriculum that teaches student s the essential knowledge, skills, and values central to the planning profession [including the] appreciation of interactions, flows of people and materia ls1

cu ltures, and differing approaches to plann ing across world regions."

The Site Visit Team assessed this criterion as partially-met, citing lack of global dimensions given no course

offerings on international planning, and no planning-focused study abroad opportunities.

The Board has assessed this criterion as met based on the additional information shared by the School Director

regarding a new course related to international planning, the existence of an international study abroad program, and curriculum in the Projects in Urban Planning course on the 1-11 corridor and its interaction with Mexican states.

Standard 4 / Curriculum a nd instruction Criterion 4A2(d) I Plan Creation and Implementation

"The Program shall offer a curriculum that teaches students the essential knowiedgep skms, and values central

to the planning prn-fessior, [i nclud ing] integrative tools useful for so1.md plan fo rmuiationp ~doption, and

implementation and enforcement."

The Site Visit Team assessed this cr iter ion as partially-met, citing a lack of both inst ruction and hands-on

oppo1iunities in the areas of plan creation and implementation .

The Board has assessed this criter ion as met based on t he add it ional information sha red bv the Schoo l Direct or

regarding student surveys and atte nt ion to plan making in the capstone/ stud io course.

Standa rd 5 / Governa nce Criterion SA/ !Program autonomy " in accordance w ith customary universitv procedures, the planning faculty shall have responsibmty for the design of its cun-iculum and sha! i have an independent voice in the appointment, promotion, tenure; and

evaluation of its faculty, and the admission and evaluation of its stude rrts ."

The Site Visit Team assessed this cri t erion as partial lv-met, citing a lack of autonomy w ith regarding to facu lty

hiring, promotion, and tenure.

The Board concurs w ith th is assessment. The Schoo l Director effect ively serves as the Program Administrato r,

which, when combined w ith a period of insuffic ient fu ll t ime facu lty, renders the Program1 s voice and

contribution to these activities uncle ar. In its future Self-Study Report the Program shou ld provide evidence t ha t

it has suffic ient decision -making discret ion, with in custom ary un iversity procedures, to govern itself effect ively.

Standard 5 / Governance Criterion SB I Program leadership "The admin istrator of the degree program shal l be a planner whose leadership and management skills, combined with education and experience in planning, enables the Program to ach ieve its goals and object ives. The administrator sha ll be ai tenured faculty member wnth an academic rank of associate professor or higher.n

The Site Visi t Team assessed this cr iterion as partially-met, citing a School Director affi liat ed wit h Landsca pe Architecture and no forma l program adm inistrator who is a planner, as requ fredl by the cri t erion.

The Board concurs wi t h this assessment . Whi le the School Director as is clea r lv high ly co mpetent, and has been SU D _Ort i\/ __ .. n. ins TU. 011 ':al i n J18 l"Ph J i1di1 a t 1 ·. P ()['.!fr 11 .. •1F1 \) rn r;:;H;"\ i.- n.0: ;:ir n i •, '. _, . ,:, · .d i·1\ ::-1 n f.::,n 1 P .r

\ 1 •" . • . ·~ ....... • · · · ::, · •• ,... ~-- -· , - -- ··~ · ·-··--.:.11..ri .. , , , . . ........ _ _ ........ ,,..j , - r ... · -u rt ,·~-·-· ···

its future Self-St udy Report t he Program should provide evidence of a prngram acl m in istraitor more al igned with planning.

Standard 5 / Governance Criterion SE/ Promotion and tenure

"lhe Program shall publ ish policies andl procedu res for making decisions about the prnmotion and tenure of

faculty, and. shall provide junior faculty w ith the support that they need to advance professional ly with in the

Program. The Program shal l provide mentorship opportunit ies for aU junior faculty, ind uding women, racial and ethnic minorities, and members of other under-represented groups/'

The Site Visi t Team assessed this cr iterion as partia lly-met, citi ng vague and non-specific criteria and expectat ions conveyed informal ly through facu lty mentoring.

The Board ~Q nG1,ir£ with t his assessment , In its future Self-Study Report the Program shou ld provide evidence

that: the Program has utilized the University's new criteria and process for promotion and tenure to improve its

own process; faculty have access to a forma l promot ion and tenure policy; and all jun ior facu lty are sufficient ly advised and supported through the process.

Standard 6 / Progress Criterion 6B / Student !earning and achievement

"lhe Program shall report dear i!1dicators of student success in ieaming the Core Knowledge, Skills, ~nd Vaiues of the profession. Such evidence should dearly identify the learning outcomes sought and achi,eved for students at either cohort or year level over the accreditation review period/'

The Site Visit Team assessed this ciriterion as partially-met, citing learning objective that were not clear,

measurable, or indicative of student success, and the absence of evidence demonstrating any resulting changes

as a result of analysis of the assessment.

The Board concurs with this assessment, and notes in particular a lack of program-specific measures of student

learning and ach ievement bevond those requ ired by PAB's standards. The primary purpose of assessment is the

improvement of teaching and learn ing and en hanced program effectiveness. In its future Self-Study Report the

Program should provide evidence of the systematic gathering, interpretation, and use of information about

student learn ing and other indicators intended to determine the impact of the Program on students. Student

learning outcomes assessment is goal driven, empirically based, and improvement oriented.

If an accredited program undergoes a substantive change, it is obligated to provide w r itten notification thereof

to PAB. Substantive changes are defined in the PI.\B Policies Manual, are typically reported via the Annual

Report, and include, but are not limi ted to: a new degree offering, a sign ificant change in curriculum

requ irements, credit hours, and/or the method of delivery of courses; a significant change in enro llment or faculty count or demographics; or the appo intment of a program administrator who does not have an

educational background or substantial e,{perience in planning. The Board may, at its discretion, request

additional information. If PAB determines tha t a program may 110 longer be in substantial compliance with any

accreditation standard, it may ini tiate an interim review to re-consider the Program 1 s accred itation status.

Additional information about substantive changes is ava ilable on our website

(www. p la nningaccreditation boa rd .o rg).

PAB appreciates the commitment and dedication to quality planning educat ion demonstrated by your

participation in the accreditation process. If vou have questions or concerns, do not hesitate to contact PAB E>cecutive Director Shonagh Merits.

Sincerely, . { .

tif~tOaM--Barbara Becker, Ph.D., FAICP

Chair, Planning Accreditation Board

Dean and Professor

School of Urban and Public Affairs

University of Texas at Arlington

Box 19588 - 501 University Hall

Arlington, Texas 76019-0588

Phone: 817.272.3300

Copies:

Andrew C. Com rie, Ph.D., Senior Vice-Pre:,ident for Acade1T1ic Affair:s and Provost

Janice Cerve lli, Ph.D., FASLA, Professor and Dean, College of Architecture, Planning, and Landscape Architecture

Lauri Macmillan Johnson, Ph.D ., ASLA, Professor and Director, School of Landscape Architecture and Planning