Visiting Team Report on Master of Architecture Program at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Study notes of Computer Architecture and Organization

Download Visiting Team Report on Master of Architecture Program at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and more Study notes Computer Architecture and Organization in PDF only on Docsity! University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign School of Architecture Visiting Team Report Master of Architecture Track I (pre-professional degree plus 62 graduate credit hours) Track II (undergraduate degree plus 65 pre-requisite credit hours and 54 graduate credit hours) The National Architectural Accrediting Board April 1, 2015 The National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB), established in 1940, is the sole agency authorized to accredit U.S. professional degree programs in architecture. Because most state registration boards in the United States require any applicant for licensure to have graduated from an NAAB-accredited program, obtaining such a degree is an essential aspect of preparing for the professional practice of architecture. iii Table of Contents Section Page I. Summary of Team Findings 1. Team Comments and Visit Summary 1 2. Conditions Not Met 1 3. Causes of Concern 1 4. Progress Since the Previous Site Visit 2 II. Compliance with the 2009 Conditions for Accreditation Part One (I) Institutional Support and Commitment to Continuous Improvement 5 Part Two (II) Educational Outcomes and Curriculum 16 III. Appendices: 1. Program Information 29 2. Conditions Met with Distinction 30 3. The Visiting Team 31 IV. Report Signatures 32 V. Confidential Recommendation 33 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Visiting Team Report March 29-April 1, 2015 3 umbrella organization Architecture Student Advisory Council (ASAC). Student course evaluations and alumni and professionals also give feedback as to school progress and standing. While the school has continued to progress and gained benefits from many recent improvements to the educational mission through self-assessment activities, clear strategic planning concurrent with on-going self-assessment activities is not evident. During the past five years, the school has welcomed a new school director, focused change in the curriculum, and moved a part of the program to a new facility for the second year course work to be integrated into one environment, sustained multiple faculty retirements and brought 20 new faculty to the program. Due to the amount of change the program is experiencing, the multi-method self-assessment programs need clarification and focus communicated to both faculty and students. The program should recognize that a focused self-assessment is critical to their long-term success. The program is moving from one that has been described as a series of silos in the past to one of core integration supported by deep areas of knowledge in the future. It would be helpful to have an articulated plan for that transformation and then assessment of the progress toward achieving that plan. Buy-in by faculty is not universal and the inertia of former patterns is difficult to overcome. This context makes moving forward challenging, yet great strides have been made, enthusiasm among many is high and the likelihood of success in this transformation is probable. A robust self-assessment program will identify where there are challenges to progress, how challenges are addressed and milestones that need to be accomplished along the way. 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that Condition I.1.5, Self- Assessment Procedures continues to be Not Met during this accreditation cycle. This team found that many of the issues noted by the 2009 visiting team could be restated. In response to the 2009 team report, the program undertook a comprehensive examination of both its governance structure and its curriculum as described in the 2014 APR and evidenced in the fact that Condition I.1.4 Long-Range Planning is fulfilled for this visit. Identification of a number of challenges and opportunities to improve the program were noted in that process (see pages 31 and 32 of the APR). Revised by-laws and a new curriculum framework were adopted in May 2014, less than 1 year prior to this accreditation visit. The program recognizes that it is still in the process of defining its implementation plan for the new curriculum, which is intended to redistribute many of the SPCs from the undergraduate to the graduate curriculum. This will require the development of several new course offerings as well as the revision of existing offerings. The metrics of success around that effort have not been defined or documented in a way that measures progress toward implementing the revised curriculum. See also Causes of Concern, A., listed above. 2004 Criterion 13.28, Comprehensive Design: Ability to produce a comprehensive architectural project based on a building program and site that includes development of programmed spaces demonstrating an understanding of structural and environmental systems, building envelope systems, life-safety provisions, wall sections and building assemblies, and the principles of sustainability. Previous Team Report (2009): Criterion 13.28, Comprehensive Design is considered “Not Met” based upon the following: While great strides in addressing comprehensive design have been made, the Team found the student projects presented did not demonstrate an ability to effectively resolve the myriad of design issues associated with this criterion. For additional comments see “Causes of Concern” at the beginning of this report. 2015 Visiting Team Assessment: The visiting team found that SPC B.6 Comprehensive Design remains Not Met during this accreditation cycle. A number of the underlying SPCs have not been met based upon the student work provided for studio courses Arch 475 and Arch 573. Both courses are noted in the Student Performance Matrix as being University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Visiting Team Report March 29-April 1, 2015 4 the primary courses where this SPC is to be met. Student work provided for studio courses Arch 476, Arch 571, Arch 572, and Arch 574 did not illustrate achievement indicating that the full range of SPCs required was successfully integrated into a comprehensive solution. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Visiting Team Report March 29-April 1, 2015 5 II. Compliance with the 2009 Conditions for Accreditation PART ONE (I): INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT AND COMMITMENT TO CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PART ONE (I): SECTION 1 – IDENTITY AND SELF-ASSESSMENT I.1.1 History and Mission: [X] The program has fulfilled this requirement for narrative and evidence. 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that Condition I.1.1 is fulfilled through the narrative provided in the APR, pages 6 through 12. The program is clearly aware of its legacy dating back to 1867, which places it among the oldest architectural programs in the nation. Based on the polytechnic model of education, this program was unique in its focus on building technology and research in the building arts. Those areas of focus continue into the present day and are being augmented through growing interest in building performance, sustainable design, and health/wellness. In 2010, the program undertook a multi-year process of reflection and evaluation of its place within the university community and the mission guiding its work. This process paralleled the campus-wide assessment, “Visioning Excellence at Illinois,” as well as that of the College of Fine and Applied Arts (FAA), of which the program is a part. The resulting vision statement, “Learn from the past. Question the present. Shape the future,” serves to honor the program’s past accomplishments and propel it into the future. The program’s mission is based on the core values of creative inquiry and state-of-the-art research based upon a solid technical foundation and reflective of society’s changing goals, beliefs, and resources as described on page 13 of the APR. I.1.2 Learning Culture and Social Equity: • Learning Culture: The program must demonstrate that it provides a positive and respectful learning environment that encourages the fundamental values of optimism, respect, sharing, engagement, and innovation between and among the members of its faculty, student body, administration, and staff in all learning environments, both traditional and non-traditional. Further, the program must demonstrate that it encourages students and faculty to appreciate these values as guiding principles of professional conduct throughout their careers, and it addresses health-related issues, such as time management. Finally, the program must document, through narrative and artifacts, its efforts to ensure that all members of the learning community: faculty, staff, and students are aware of these objectives and are advised as to the expectations for ensuring they are met in all elements of the learning culture. • Social Equity: The accredited degree program must provide faculty, students, and staff— irrespective of race, ethnicity, creed, national origin, gender, age, physical ability, or sexual orientation—with a culturally rich educational environment in which each person is equitably able to learn, teach, and work. This includes provisions for students with mobility or learning disabilities. The program must have a clear policy on diversity that is communicated to current and prospective faculty, students, and staff and that is reflected in the distribution of the program’s human, physical, and financial resources. Finally, the program must demonstrate that it has a plan in place to maintain or increase the diversity of its faculty, staff, and students when compared with diversity of the institution during the term of the next two accreditation cycles. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Visiting Team Report March 29-April 1, 2015 8 knowledge with both undergraduate and graduate students. The Guest Coordinators in Arch 501 constitute a punctuation point in the program’s preparation of students to transition from the Education phase of their preparation to the Experience and Examination phases of the licensure process. An impressive number of students responded that they had begun their IDP records with NCARB during the visiting team’s meeting with the student body. D. Architectural Education and the Profession. That students enrolled in the accredited degree program are prepared: to practice in a global economy; to recognize the impact of design on the environment; to understand the diverse and collaborative roles assumed by architects in practice; to understand the diverse and collaborative roles and responsibilities of related disciplines; to respect client expectations; to advocate for design-based solutions that respond to the multiple needs of a diversity of clients and diverse populations, as well as the needs of communities; and to contribute to the growth and development of the profession. [X] The program is responsive to this perspective. 2015 Team Assessment: The program is preparing its M. Arch. graduates to enter practice and respond to the complexities of practice in the 21st century. The examination of and revisions to the program’s governance and curriculum, as described in the APR, pages 23 to 34, represent a clear intention to make the revisions needed to keep the program relevant and prepare students to address the unknown issues they will encounter throughout their careers. Technical performance issues and the craft of building have long been the foundation of the program. As seen in the syllabi and student work for the courses addressing the Student Performance Criteria in Realm B, the program is integrating advances in building technology and design to maintain those traditions. Preparing for the leadership, collaborative, and business roles that architects must assume as part of the AEC industry is the focus of Arch 501. E. Architectural Education and the Public Good. That students enrolled in the accredited degree program are prepared: to be active, engaged citizens; to be responsive to the needs of a changing world; to acquire the knowledge needed to address pressing environmental, social, and economic challenges through design, conservation, and responsible professional practice; to understand the ethical implications of their decisions; to reconcile differences between the architect’s obligation to his/her client and the public; and to nurture a climate of civic engagement, including a commitment to professional and public service and leadership. [X] The program is responsive to this perspective. 2015 Team Assessment: The students and faculty are eager to address environmental, health, and social challenges confronting society through architectural design and research. The program’s four entries in the Solar Decathlon Competition, and its application for a fifth entry, are outstanding examples of the program’s contributions to raising public awareness of sustainability and the possibilities of low-energy housing. The students and faculty exhibited a keen awareness of architecture’s opportunities and its obligation to address societal issues, including diversity and social justice. Student work presented in the design studio and team room, such as the Arch 572 Haiti Studio, shows the faculty’s and students’ high ethical and social ambitions. The program’s focus on Action Research presents additional strong evidence of developing mechanisms for engaging a broader range of communities. I.1.4 Long-Range Planning: An accredited degree program must demonstrate that it has identified multi- year objectives for continuous improvement within the context of its mission and culture, the mission and culture of the institution, and, where appropriate, the five perspectives. In addition, the program must demonstrate that data is collected routinely and from multiple sources to inform its future planning and strategic decision making. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Visiting Team Report March 29-April 1, 2015 9 [X] The program’s processes meet the standards as set by the NAAB. 2015 Team Assessment: The team found evidence that the program has demonstrated that it engages in a regular and robust process that fulfills Condition I.1.4 as documented in the APR on pages 23 through 27. This process includes considering the program’s place in the college and the university in order to align with their goals while maintaining an appropriate focus on its goals. The refinement of the program’s vision statement, “Learn from the past. Question the future. Shape the future,” is further evidence of that focus. These efforts have led to proposed curriculum changes that have not yet been fully implemented. I.1.5 Self-Assessment Procedures: The program must demonstrate that it regularly assesses the following:  How the program is progressing towards its mission.  Progress against its defined multi-year objectives (see above) since the objectives were identified and since the last visit.  Strengths, challenges, and opportunities faced by the program while developing learning opportunities in support of its mission and culture, the mission and culture of the institution, and the five perspectives.  Self-assessment procedures shall include, but are not limited to: o Solicitation of faculty’s, students’, and graduates’ views on the teaching, learning, and achievement opportunities provided by the curriculum. o Individual course evaluations. o Review and assessment of the focus and pedagogy of the program. o Institutional self-assessment, as determined by the institution. The program must also demonstrate that results of self-assessments are regularly used to advise and encourage changes and adjustments to promote student success as well as the continued maturation and development of the program. [X] The program’s processes do not meet the standards as set by the NAAB. 2015 Team Assessment: The team found evidence that the program has not demonstrated that its processes meet Condition I.1.5 as documented in the APR on pages 27 through 34. The program has defined its objectives and assessed its challenges. While the program’s Curriculum Committee members include students to assist in the evaluation of courses, few other inputs appear to be utilized. The campus-wide Instructor and Course Evaluation System (ICES), the Center for Innovation in Teaching and Learning (CITL), the “Teachers Ranked as Excellent by their Students” list, and the Chancellor’s Senior Survey are available inputs that can be used, but there is no evidence that they are regularly consulted. The student meetings with the director and the “Quipit” forums that include students and faculty, which are held periodically throughout the academic year, are additional opportunities for input, but there does not appear to be any documentation of these discussions that can be referenced in the assessment process. There is no discussion in the APR of regular, documented input to the assessment process from practitioners or alumni. No specific implementation plan with milestones is used to evaluate progress toward achieving the program’s goals or the many changes that it currently has underway. See also Causes of Concern, A., listed above. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Visiting Team Report March 29-April 1, 2015 10 PART ONE (I): SECTION 2 – RESOURCES I.2.1 Human Resources and Human Resource Development:  Faculty and Staff: o An accredited degree program must have appropriate human resources to support student learning and achievement. This includes full- and part-time instructional faculty, administrative leadership, and technical, administrative, and other support staff. Programs are required to document personnel policies, which may include, but are not limited to, faculty and staff position descriptions.2 o Accredited programs must document the policies they have in place to further Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action (EEO/AA) and other diversity initiatives. o An accredited degree program must demonstrate that it balances the workloads of all faculty and staff to support a tutorial exchange between the student and teacher that promotes student achievement. o An accredited degree program must demonstrate that an IDP Education Coordinator has been appointed within each accredited degree program, trained in the issues of IDP, and has regular communication with students and is fulfilling the requirements as outlined in the IDP Education Coordinator position description and regularly attends IDP Coordinator training and development programs. o An accredited degree program must demonstrate it is able to provide opportunities for all faculty and staff to pursue professional development that contributes to program improvement. o Accredited programs must document the criteria used for determining rank, reappointment, tenure, and promotion as well as eligibility requirements for professional development resources. [X] Human resources (faculty and staff) are adequate for the program. 2015 Team Assessment: The team found evidence that the program has adequate human resources to meet Condition I.2.1 for faculty and staff as documented in the APR on pages 34 through 49. Campus-wide policies for faculty appointments, the tenure and promotion process, and annual evaluations are listed on the Office of the Provost’s website. In its by-laws, the program provides additional information on its specific tenure and promotion processes and visiting/adjunct appointments. The APR includes, on pages 39 to 45, an impressive list of financial support opportunities for faculty development. The faculty members are satisfied concerning financial support and grants available for conference travel, research, and creative work. The UI’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Access provides a full palette of resources related to Equal Employment and Affirmative Action. The faculty-student ratio in studios is 14 to 67, which is within an acceptable range to achieve the program’s mission. The program’s Architect Licensing Advisor, Lee Waldrep, is widely known among faculty and students, and gives presentations in Arch 501 and Arch 231.  Students: o An accredited program must document its student admissions policies and procedures. This documentation may include, but is not limited to, application forms and instructions, admissions requirements, admissions decisions procedures, financial aid and scholarships procedures, and student diversity initiatives. These procedures should include first-time freshmen, as well as transfers within and outside of the university. o An accredited degree program must demonstrate its commitment to student achievement both inside and outside the classroom through individual and collective learning opportunities. 2 A list of the policies and other documents to be made available in the team room during an accreditation visit is in Appendix 3. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Visiting Team Report March 29-April 1, 2015 13 PART ONE (I): SECTION 3 – INSTITUTIONAL AND PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS I.3.1 Statistical Reports3: Programs are required to provide statistical data in support of activities and policies that support social equity in the professional degree and program as well as other data points that demonstrate student success and faculty development.  Program student characteristics o Demographics (race/ethnicity and gender) of all students enrolled in the accredited degree program(s).  Demographics compared to those recorded at the time of the previous visit.  Demographics compared to those of the student population for the institution overall. o Qualifications of students admitted in the fiscal year prior to the visit.  Qualifications of students admitted in the fiscal year prior to the upcoming visit compared to those admitted in the fiscal year prior to the last visit. o Time to graduation.  Percentage of matriculating students who complete the accredited degree program within the “normal time to completion” for each academic year since the previous visit.  Percentage that complete the accredited degree program within 150% of the normal time to completion for each academic year since the previous visit.  Program faculty characteristics o Demographics (race/ethnicity and gender) for all full-time instructional faculty.  Demographics compared to those recorded at the time of the previous visit.  Demographics compared to those of the full-time instructional faculty at the institution overall. o Number of faculty promoted each year since last visit.  Compare to number of faculty promoted each year across the institution during the same period. o Number of faculty receiving tenure each year since last visit.  Compare to number of faculty receiving tenure at the institution during the same period. o Number of faculty maintaining licenses from U.S. jurisdictions each year since the last visit, and where they are licensed. [X] Statistical Reports were provided and provide the appropriate information. 2015 Team Assessment: The team found evidence that Condition I.3.1 is Met through a review of the Statistical Reports provided. Visual resources to support this conclusion were found on the website at https://uofi.box.com/s/ 6wmsd4sb6e0ycbnwlb3pu9ylf5lopzpc and noted in the APR on pages 96 through 101. 
 I.3.2. Annual Reports: The program is required to submit annual reports in the format required by Section 10 of the 2009 NAAB Procedures. Beginning in 2008, these reports are submitted electronically to the NAAB. Beginning in the fall of 2010, the NAAB will provide to the visiting team all annual reports submitted since 2008. The NAAB will also provide the NAAB Responses to the annual reports. The program must certify that all statistical data it submits to NAAB has been verified by the institution and is consistent with institutional reports to national and regional agencies, including the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System of the National Center for Education Statistics. 3 In all cases, these statistics should be reported in the same format as they are reported in the Annual Report Submission system. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Visiting Team Report March 29-April 1, 2015 14 The program is required to provide all annual reports, including statistics and narratives that were submitted prior to 2008. The program is also required to provide all NAAB Responses to annual reports transmitted prior to 2008. In the event a program underwent a Focused Evaluation, the Focused Evaluation Program Report and Focused Evaluation Team Report, including appendices and addenda, should also be included. [X] Annual Reports and NAAB Responses were provided and provide the appropriate information. 2015 Team Assessment: The team found evidence that the Condition I.3.2 Annual Reports are provided and appropriate through a review of the Annual Reports provided in the team room, noted in the APR on pages 96 through 101. Additional evidence was found on the website at http://www.arch.illinois.edu/welcome/accreditation and noted in the APR on page 101. I.3.3 Faculty Credentials: The program must demonstrate that the instructional faculty are adequately prepared to provide an architecture education within the mission, history, and context of the institution. In addition, the program must provide evidence through a faculty exhibit4 that the faculty, taken as a whole, reflects the range of knowledge and experience necessary to promote student achievement as described in Part Two. This exhibit should include highlights of faculty professional development and achievement since the last accreditation visit. [X] Faculty credentials were provided and demonstrate the range of knowledge and experience necessary to promote student achievement. 2015 Team Assessment: The team found evidence that the Condition I.3.3 Faculty Credentials are provided and appropriate through a review of the faculty credentials noted on pages 102 and 103 of the APR, documents provided in the team room, additional information requested by the visiting team while on campus, the faculty exhibit, and information on the website at http://www.arch.illinois.edu/faculty. 4 The faculty exhibit should be set up near or in the team room. To the extent the exhibit is incorporated into the team room, it should not be presented in a manner that interferes with the team’s ability to view and evaluate student work. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Visiting Team Report March 29-April 1, 2015 15 PART ONE (I): SECTION 4 – POLICY REVIEW The information required in the three sections described above is to be addressed in the APR. In addition, the program shall provide a number of documents for review by the visiting team. Rather than be appended to the APR, they are to be provided in the team room during the visit. The list is available in Appendix 3. [X] The policy documents in the team room met the requirements of Appendix 3. 2015 Team Assessment: The team found evidence that the Policy Review condition is Met through a review of the websites noted on pages 103 and 104 of the APR, documents provided in the team room, and additional information requested by the visiting team while on campus.
 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Visiting Team Report March 29-April 1, 2015 18 Eastern, Western, Northern, and Southern hemispheres in terms of their climatic, ecological, technological, socioeconomic, public health, and cultural factors. [X] Not Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found that the A.9 Historical Traditions and Global Culture criterion is Not Met in Arch 577, Arch 573, Arch 475, or Arch 210 as noted on the SPC Matrix provided in the team room. A review of the syllabi, presentations, and student work provided did not demonstrate that the traditions and culture of either the Eastern or the Southern hemisphere was addressed. A. 10. Cultural Diversity: Understanding of the diverse needs, values, behavioral norms, physical abilities, and social and spatial patterns that characterize different cultures and individuals and the implication of this diversity on the societal roles and responsibilities of architects. [X] Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that the A.10 Cultural Diversity criterion is Met through a review of the syllabi, presentations, and student work in the binder for Arch 577 as noted in the SPC Matrix provided in the team room. A. 11. Applied Research: Understanding the role of applied research in determining function, form, and systems and their impact on human conditions and behavior. [X] Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that the A.11 Applied Research criterion is Met with Distinction through a review of the syllabi, presentations, and student work for Arch 544, Arch 558, Arch 559, Arch 593, Arch 594dd, Arch 594gds, and Arch 595in as noted in the SPC Matrix provided in the team room. Every graduate student is required to take a minimum of one of these elective courses. Realm A. General Team Commentary: The curriculum addresses the broad range of critical thinking, representation, and communication skills required to succeed in architectural practice. Students completing the M. Arch. program are well prepared to participate in architectural teams within offices and contribute to the design, representation, and completion of projects. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Visiting Team Report March 29-April 1, 2015 19 Realm B: Integrated Building Practices, Technical Skills and Knowledge: Architects are called upon to comprehend the technical aspects of design, systems, and materials, and be able to apply that comprehension to their services. Additionally, they must appreciate their role in the implementation of design decisions, and their impact of such decisions on the environment. Students learning aspirations include: • Creating building designs with well-integrated systems. • Comprehending constructability. • Incorporating life safety systems. • Integrating accessibility. • Applying principles of sustainable design. B. 1. Pre-Design: Ability to prepare a comprehensive program for an architectural project, such as preparing an assessment of client and user needs, an inventory of space and equipment requirements, an analysis of site conditions (including existing buildings), a review of the relevant laws and standards and assessment of their implications for the project, and a definition of site selection and design assessment criteria. [X] Not Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that the B.1 Pre-Design criterion is Not Met through a review of the syllabi, presentations, and student work in the binder for Arch 572. Some student work did illustrate that students acquired these skills as noted in the SPC Matrix provided in the team room. In response to the team’s request for additional evidence, the program indicated that not all graduate students were required to enroll in Arch 572. Perhaps as few as 85% of the students were enrolled in this course. B. 2. Accessibility: Ability to design sites, facilities, and systems to provide independent and integrated use by individuals with physical (including mobility), sensory, and cognitive disabilities. [X] Not Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that the B.2 Accessibility criterion is Not Met through a review of the syllabi, presentations, and student work in the binders and the drawings for Arch 573 and Arch 475 as noted in the SPC Matrix provided in the team room. In addition, evidence was not found in studio courses Arch 571, Arch 572, and Arch 574. Evidence in student drawings was inconsistent in demonstrating that accessibility and inclusive design issues are consciously or critically addressed in students’ design solutions. This SPC was also Not Met in the 2009 accreditation cycle. B. 3. Sustainability: Ability to design projects that optimize, conserve, or reuse natural and built resources, provide healthful environments for occupants/users, and reduce the environmental impacts of building construction and operations on future generations through means such as carbon-neutral design, bioclimatic design, and energy efficiency. [X] Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that the B.3 Sustainability criterion is Met through a review of the syllabi, presentations, and student work in the binders and the drawings for University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Visiting Team Report March 29-April 1, 2015 20 Arch 573 and Arch 475 as noted in the SPC Matrix provided in the team room. Evidence was also found in studio courses Arch 571, Arch 572, and Arch 574. Elective courses Arch 594dd, Arch 594gds, and Arch 595in allow students to deepen their knowledge of sustainable design issues. B. 4. Site Design: Ability to respond to site characteristics such as soil, topography, vegetation, and watershed in the development of a project design. [X] Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that the B.4 Site Design criterion is Met through a review of the syllabi, presentations, and student work in the binders and the drawings for Arch 573 and Arch 475 as noted in the SPC Matrix provided in the team room. Additional evidence was found in studio courses Arch 571, Arch 572, and Arch 574. B. 5. Life Safety: Ability to apply the basic principles of life-safety systems with an emphasis on egress. [X] Not Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that the B.5 Life Safety criterion is Not Met through a review of the syllabi, presentations, and student work in the binders and the drawings for courses Arch 573 and Arch 475 as noted in the SPC Matrix provided in the team room. In addition, evidence was not found in studio courses Arch 571, Arch 572, and Arch 574. Evidence in student drawings was inconsistent in demonstrating that life-safety provisions, including door swings, exit stair layouts, areas of refuge, fire sprinklers, and fire rated assemblies, are often considered in the studio courses. B. 6. Comprehensive Design: Ability to produce a comprehensive architectural project that demonstrates each student’s capacity to make design decisions across scales while integrating the following SPC: A.2. Design Thinking Skills B.2. Accessibility A.4. Technical Documentation B.3. Sustainability A.5. Investigative Skills B.4. Site Design A.8. Ordering Systems B.7. Environmental Systems A.9. Historical Traditions and Global Culture B.9.Structural Systems B.5. Life Safety [X] Not Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that the B.6 Comprehensive Design criterion is Not Met through a review of the syllabi, presentations, and student work in the binders and the drawings for Arch 573 and Arch 475 as noted in the SPC Matrix provided in the team room. In addition, evidence was not found in studio courses Arch 571, Arch 572, and Arch 574. A number of the underlying SPCs required of this SPC were Not Met as noted, resulting in student drawings that were University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Visiting Team Report March 29-April 1, 2015 23 [X] Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that the C.2 Human Behavior criterion is Met through a review of the syllabi, presentations, and student work in the binders and the drawings for Arch 342 and Arch 572 as noted in the SPC Matrix provided in the team room. Graduate students who cannot demonstrate achievement of skills reflecting this criterion in their undergraduate program are required to take Arch 572. C. 3. Client Role in Architecture: Understanding of the responsibility of the architect to elicit, understand, and reconcile the needs of the client, owner, user groups, and the public and community domains. [X] Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that the C.3 Client Role in Architecture criterion is Met through a review of the syllabi, presentations, and student work presented in the binders for Arch 501 as noted in the SPC Matrix provided in the team room. C. 4. Project Management: Understanding of the methods for competing for commissions, selecting consultants and assembling teams, and recommending project delivery methods [X] Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that the C.4 Project Management criterion is Met through a review of the syllabi, presentations, and student work in the binders for Arch 501 as noted in the SPC Matrix provided in the team room. C. 5. Practice Management: Understanding of the basic principles of architectural practice management such as financial management and business planning, time management, risk management, mediation and arbitration, and recognizing trends that affect practice. [X] Met 2014 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that the C.5 Practice Management criterion is Met through a review of the syllabi, presentations, and student work presented in the binders for Arch 501 as noted in the SPC Matrix provided in the team room. C. 6. Leadership: Understanding of the techniques and skills architects use to work collaboratively in the building design and construction process and on environmental, social, and aesthetic issues in their communities. [X] Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that the C.6 Leadership criterion is Met through a review of the syllabi, presentations, and student work in the binders for Arch 501 as noted in the SPC Matrix provided in the team room. C. 7. Legal Responsibilities: Understanding of the architect’s responsibility to the public and the client as determined by registration law, building codes and regulations, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Visiting Team Report March 29-April 1, 2015 24 professional service contracts, zoning and subdivision ordinances, environmental regulation, and historic preservation and accessibility laws. [X] Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that the C.7 Legal Responsibilities criterion is Met through a review of the syllabi, presentations, and student work in the binders for Arch 501 as noted in the SPC Matrix provided in the team room. C. 8. Ethics and Professional Judgment: Understanding of the ethical issues involved in the formation of professional judgment regarding social, political and cultural issues, and responsibility in architectural design and practice. [X] Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that the C.8 Ethics and Professional Judgment criterion is Met through a review of the syllabi, presentations, and student work in the binders for Arch 501 as noted in the SPC Matrix provided in the team room. C. 9. Community and Social Responsibility: Understanding of the architect’s responsibility to work in the public interest, to respect historic resources, and to improve the quality of life for local and global neighbors. [X] Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that the C.9 Community and Social Responsibility criterion is Met through a review of the syllabi, presentations, and student work in the binders for Arch 501 as noted in the SPC Matrix provided in the team room. Realm C. General Team Commentary: The program relies heavily on a single course, Arch 501, to provide students with learning opportunities in fulfillment of the SPCs required in Realm C. Arch 501 offers a broad range of perspectives regarding those SPCs through the guest lecturers that are invited to present various topics to the students. The opportunity to reflect on those perspectives is reinforced through the online journal that students are required to maintain over the period of the course. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Visiting Team Report March 29-April 1, 2015 25 PART TWO (II): SECTION 2 – CURRICULAR FRAMEWORK II.2.1 Regional Accreditation: The institution offering the accredited degree program must be, or be part of, an institution accredited by one of the following regional institutional accrediting agencies for higher education: the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS); the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (MSACS); the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC); the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCACS); the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU); and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). [X] Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that Condition II.2.1 Regional Accreditation is Met through a review of online resources at http://ncahlc.org/component/directory/?Action=ShowBasic&Itemid=&instid=1872&lang=en and as noted in the APR on pages 108 and 109. The university received its last re-accreditation in 2009-2010. It is scheduled for its next review for re-accreditation in 2019-2020. II.2.2 Professional Degrees and Curriculum: The NAAB accredits the following professional degree programs: the Bachelor of Architecture (B. Arch.), the Master of Architecture (M. Arch.), and the Doctor of Architecture (D. Arch.). The curricular requirements for awarding these degrees must include professional studies, general studies, and electives. Schools offering the degrees B. Arch., M. Arch., and/or D. Arch. are strongly encouraged to use these degree titles exclusively with NAAB-accredited professional degree programs. [X] Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that Condition II.2.2 Professional Degrees and Curriculum is Met as noted in the APR on pages 114 through 120.The University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign offers an NAAB-accredited professional Master of Architecture degree that can be achieved in two ways: (1) students with a non-professional undergraduate degree in architecture may enroll in the four-semester course of study requiring 62 credit hours, or (2) students with an undergraduate degree in a subject other than architecture or from another institution may enroll in a four plus semester course of study requiring a minimum of 122 graduate credit hours. II.2.3 Curriculum Review and Development: The program must describe the process by which the curriculum for the NAAB-accredited degree program is evaluated and how modifications (e.g., changes or additions) are identified, developed, approved, and implemented. Further, the NAAB expects that programs are evaluating curricula with a view toward the advancement of the discipline and toward ensuring that students are exposed to current issues in practice. Therefore, the program must demonstrate that licensed architects are included in the curriculum review and development process. [X] Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that Condition II.2.3 Curriculum Review and Development is Met as noted in the APR on pages 120 through 125 and in evidence provided in the team room. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Visiting Team Report March 29-April 1, 2015 28 II.4.4 Public Access to APRs and VTRs: In order to promote transparency in the process of accreditation in architecture education, the program is required to make the following documents available to the public: All Annual Reports, including the narrative All NAAB responses to the Annual Report The final decision letter from the NAAB The most recent APR The final edition of the most recent Visiting Team Report, including attachments and addenda These documents must be housed together and accessible to all. Programs are encouraged to make these documents available electronically from their websites. [X] Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that Condition II.4.4 Public Access to APRs and VTRs is Met through a review of the program’s website at http://www.arch.illinois.edu/welcome/accreditation as noted in the APR on pages 127 and 128. Live Internet links are provided to files containing the 2009 APR, 2009 final decision letter and VTR, 2009 SPC chart, and Annual Reports for years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. II.4.5 ARE Pass Rates: Annually, the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards publishes pass rates for each section of the Architect Registration Examination by institution. This information is considered to be useful to parents and prospective students as part of their planning for higher/post- secondary education. Therefore, programs are required to make this information available to current and prospective students and their parents, either by publishing the annual results or by linking their website to the results. [X] Met 2015 Team Assessment: The visiting team found evidence that Condition II.4.5 ARE Pass Rates is Met through a review of the program’s website at http://www.arch.illinois.edu/welcome/accreditation as noted in the APR on page 128. A live Internet link is provided to NCARB’s web page, which enables a search for the ARE results for University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign students who have taken the exam. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Visiting Team Report March 29-April 1, 2015 29 III. Appendices: 1. Program Information [Taken from the Architecture Program Report, responses to Part One: Section 1 Identity and Self- Assessment] A. History and Mission of the Institution (I.1.1) Reference University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, APR, pp. 6-11 B. History and Mission of the Program (I.1.1) Reference University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, APR, pp. 11-12 C. Long-Range Planning (I.1.4) Reference University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, APR, pp. 23-25 D. Self-Assessment (I.1.5) Reference University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, APR, pp. 25-34 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Visiting Team Report March 29-April 1, 2015 30 2. Conditions Met with Distinction A.11 Applied Research B.9 Structural Systems Program Response to the Final Draft Visiting Team Report School of Architecture Director's Office 611 E Lorado Taft Drive 117 Temple Hoyne Buell Hall Champaign, IL 61820-6921 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN Response to the NAAB Visiting Team Report School of Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign May 28, 2015 Peter Mortensen, Director Lynne Dearborn, Associate Professor and Faculty Accreditation Liaison The School of Architecture at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is deeply invested in the accreditation process provided by the National Architecture Accreditation Board (NAAB). The process ensures that our resources, curriculum, and pedagogy are aligned to prepare students for success in their chosen profession. Ma intaining this alignment is an ongoing challenge, and the School has historically incorporated findings from NAAB accreditation evaluations into its continuous efforts to sustain excellence in all phases of its operation. Indeed, findings laid out in the 2009 NAAB Visiting Team Report (VTR) motivated the School's leadership and faculty to undertake two complementary initiatives that are responsive to the interests of all collateral stakeholders in architectural education: • The School restructured its faculty into Program Areas, each sufficiently stable to exercise responsibility for segments of the undergraduate and graduate curricula, yet flexible enough encourage instructional and research collaborations across program boundaries. • Within this new structure, it has been possible to undertake curricular revision, the aim of which is to migrate satisfaction of certain NAAB Student Performance Criteria (SPC) from the four-year Bachelor of Science in Architectural Studies (BSAS) degree program into the two-year Master of Architecture (M.Arch) degree program. The multi-year process of creating Program Areas was completed in Spring 20 l 3 with adoption of new School bylaws. The adoption of new bylaws set the curriculum revision process in motion, which reached a major milestone in Spring 2014 with the adoption of frameworks for revised undergraduate and graduate curricula. The 2014-20 l 5 academic year saw the Curriculum Committee make excellent progress toward new course development within the approved degree frameworks. It is anticipated that complete curriculum proposals will be advanced through college, campus, university, and state approval processes beginning next fall. At Illinois, as at many public research universities, revising bylaws and curricula is a deliberate process, deliberate in the sense that much deliberation is expected at multiple levels of institutional governance. While such deliberation may at times appear inefficient, it typically delivers results that can be implemented with fidelity to a clear standard of excellence. This has been the experience in the Illinois School of Architecture. And reflecting on this experience, it is certainly fair to attribute a measure of our organizational and curricular progress to the fair and rigorous reaccreditation review delivered by our NAAB Visiting Team six years ago. The report of the 201 5 Visiting Team provides direction for continued improvement of our curricula, and we are grateful to the team chair and team members for their keenest insights. However, as we noted in our response to the draft VTR, we are hard pressed to link some of these insights to facts or context put in evidence in our Architecture Program Review (APR), in the team room and associated exhibitions, and in conversations during the team's site visit. Rather than repeat assertions made in our response to the draft VTR, we are accepting NAAB Director of Accreditation Cassandra Pair's invitation to make this earlier response available to the NAAB Board of Directors. Attached are: • • • Ms. Pair's invitation (May 19, 2015) Illinois School of Architecture Director's cover letter to response to the draft VTR (April 27, 2015) Illinois School of Architecture's response to the draft VTR (April 27, 2015) In appending our draft VTR response, we call particular attention to our request, unmet in the final VTR, that listed Causes of Concern be backed by evidence, per NAAB's Procedures for Accreditation (2012 edition). We are moved to thank the NAAB board member (Tyler Ashworth, Assoc. AIA) and staff member (Janet Rumbarger, Director, Research and Assessment) who reached out to us on April 16, 2015, for a detailed conversation about our experience as part of this spring's piloting of abbreviated site visits and smaller visiting teams. We trust that they can share with the full board the School's perspective on having been included in the pilot without our full consent. We expect, as well, that they can pass along our sense that constraints imposed by the pilot prevented Visiting Team members from • fully engaging with our APR and associated documents prior to the site visit; • observing class and studio meetings in manner that would have illustrated how the ideals expressed in our School Culture Policy are enacted in regular practice; and • consulting with established faculty groups-such as the School's elected Executive Committee, its appointed Curriculum Committee, and its elected Program Area Chairs-in order to elicit critical perspectives on School operations. Let us close by stressing one consequence of the Visiting Team's lack of time to consult with established faculty groups. The path forward toward continued curricular development, implementation of new curricula, and evaluation of their effectiveness is well described in the governing documents of the School, as well as those of the College, the Academic Senate, and the University. Moreover, the School's annual evaluation of curricular effectiveness-mandated by our bylaws and undertaken by elected Program Area Chairs in consultation with Program Area faculty-will produce results that will inform the periodic Academic Program Review ( b!!.Q.d/_J:>rovost.illinois.edu£~ro_gramreview Ll that is supported by our campus administration. The School of Architecture is scheduled for its program review, complete with a self-study and 2 UTTITVERSITY oF ITTTNoIS ar URBANe-CUAMPATGN School of Architecture 117 Temple Hoyne Buell Hall, MC-621 611 Taft Drive Champaign, lL 61820-6921, USA Apnl27,2015 Cassandra Pair Director of Accreditation National Architectural Accrediting Board, Inc. 1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 410 Washington,DC 20036 Dear Ms. Pair, Thank you for the opportunity to review a draft of the NAAB Visiting Team Report authored by RK Stewart, Ute Poerschke, and Meghan Leahy following their campus visit in late March. We sincerely appreciate their effort. Per your instructions and guidelines found in NAAB's Procedures for Acteditation (20t2, Amended), I am submitting requests for the correction of factual errors found in the draft VTR. These requests were formulated after consultation with the School of Architecture's Executive Committee, its four Program Area chairs, and the team that prepared for the accreditation site visit, led by Professor Lynne Dearborn. Please let me know if you have any questions (plqq{19ry(@dliuqtg.Q1s,217'333-1330). Sincerely, Peter Mortensen Director Attachment tclephone 277 -333-1330 . fax 217 -244-2900  1   University  of  Illinois  at  Urbana-­‐Champaign   School  of  Architecture Factual  Review  of  NAAB  Visiting  Team  Report   April  27,  2015   I.  Summary   This  document  requests  the  correction  of  factual  errors  in  the  draft  Visiting  Team  Report.   II.  Section  1.2,  Conditions  Not  Met   A.9   Historical  Traditions  and  Global  Cultures   There  is  evidence  highlighted  in  the  attached  ARCH  210  and  ARCH  577  syllabi  that   traditions  and  cultures  of  the  Eastern  and  Southern  hemispheres  are  addressed.  ARCH   210  is  taken  by  all  M.Arch  students  who  complete  the  BSAS  with  us.  ARCH  577  is   completed  by  all  graduate  students  in  the  M.Arch  program  whether  they  have   completed  their  BSAS  with  us  or  at  another  institution.  Thus,  all  students  earning  the   accredited  M.Arch  meet  condition  A.9.   III.  Section  1.3,  Causes  of  Concern   General  Observation   In  NAAB’s  Procedures  for  Accreditation  (2012,  amended),  the  “Causes  of  Concern”  section  of  the   VTR  is  described  as  follows  (in  Section  5,  4.c.i.3,  p.  49):   This  is  a  narrative  that  describes  specific  concerns  of  the  team  relative  to  unmet   conditions  or  to  conditions   that  may  have  been  met  within  the  strict  definition  of  the   condition/criterion,  but  for  which  the  team  has  concerns  or   questions.  This  is  a   numbered  list.  Each  item  should  have  a  brief   title.  It  is  not  necessary  for  an  unmet   condition  to  generate  a   cause  for  concern;  likewise  conditions/criteria  that  are   determined  to  be  met  may  have  also  generated  concerns  within  the  team.   It  is  unclear  upon  what  factual  basis  some  causes  of  concern  rest.  Following  the  Procedures,  a   factual  basis  for  these  concerns  could  be  established  with  reference  to  specific  unmet  or  met   conditions,  along  with  the  citation  of  relevant  evidence  from  the  School’s  APR,  its  Team  Room,   and  Student  Exhibit.  (For  the  most  part,  citation  of  evidence  appears  to  be  absent  from  the   VTR.)  Alternatively,  causes  of  concern  not  linked  to  specific  conditions  addressed  in  the  APR   could  be  deleted  from  the  final  draft  of  the  VTR.   Subsection  A   Please  see  Appendix  A  for  a  detailed  response  to  the  causes  of  concern  set  forth  in  Subsection   A  of  the  draft  VTR.  Appendix  A  was  composed  by  the  School’s  Program  Area  chairs:  Associate    2   Professor  Lynne  Dearborn  (Health  and  Wellbeing),  Associate  Professor  Kevin  Hinders   (Urbanism),  Associate  Professor  Scott  Murray  (Performance),  and  Professor  Jeffrey  Poss  (detail   +  FABRICATION).   Subsection  B   Peter  Mortensen  was  appointed  Director  of  the  School  of  Architecture,  an  administrative  role,   by  the  Board  of  Trustees  upon  recommendation  of  the  Dean  of  the  College  of  Fine  and  Applied   Arts  and  the  Chancellor/Vice  President  of  the  Urbana  campus  of  the  University  of  Illinois.  The   appointment  conforms  to  the  University  of  Illinois  Statutes   (http://www.bot.uillinois.edu/statutes).  Mortensen  was  not  appointed  to  the  School  of   Architecture  faculty,  as  asserted  in  the  draft  VTR,  for  precisely  the  reason  cited:  his  “academic   expertise  is  not  within  the  body  of  knowledge,  skills,  or  traditions  of  architecture  or  its   professional  practice.”   Subsection  C   The  cause  of  concern  detailed  in  this  subsection  misunderstands  policies  and  processes   described  in  the  School’s  APR,  Part  II,  Sections  1,  2,  and  3.  Each  student  who  successfully   completes  the  program’s  non-­‐accredited  BSAS  degree  and  graduates  with  that  degree  has  by   virtue  of  successful  completion  of  the  curriculum  met  the  SPCs  satisfied  through  the  BSAS   curriculum,  as  noted  in  Student  Performance  Criteria  Matrix  on  p.  106  of  the  APR.  Each  student   who  graduates  from  the  School’s  BSAS  degree  program  and  matriculates  into  the  School’s   M.Arch  program  understands  what  requirements  they  have  met  in  their  undergraduate  degree   and  which  courses  are  required  and  which  are  elective  in  their  M.Arch  curriculum.  This  is  made   clear  to  them  during  student  orientation  of  their  entering  fall  semester.  They  then  receive   advising  from  either  the  Associate  Director  for  Graduate  Programs  and  Study  or  from  one  of  the   Program  Chairs  throughout  their  time  in  the  M.Arch  program.  The  School’s  Graduate  Office   maintains  the  records  of  requirements  completed  for  each  M.Arch  student  and  students  are   required  to  review  these  at  regular  intervals  throughout  their  M.Arch  program.   IV.  Additional  Corrections   p.  4   Observation:  “Studio  Culture  Policy”  should  read  “School  Culture  Policy”   p.  9   Observation:  “Studio  Culture  Policy”  should  read  “School  Culture  Policy”   p.  10   Architectural  Education  and  the  Regulatory  Environment   Observation:  The  program’s  IDP  Coordinator  is  NOT  a  member  of  the  faculty.    Also,  what   are  Guest  Coordinators  in  Arch  501.    Do  they  mean  the  IDP  Coordinator  and  the  Student   IDP  Coordinator.  Also,  as  of  Summer  2014,  the  proper  term  is  “Architect  Licensing   Advisor,”  not  IDP  Coordinator  (see  http://www.ncarb.org/Experience-­‐Through-­‐ Internships/IDP-­‐Coordinators.aspx#sthash.LDA2fqkN.dpuf).      5   program  review,  which  includes  a  visit  by  external  evaluators,  is  scheduled  for  the  2017-­‐ 2018  academic  year.   4. Statement:  “A  revised  graduate  admissions  documentation  process....”   The  current  graduate  admissions  process  results  directly  from  NAAB  requirements  to   document  SPCs  that  are  expected  to  be  met  through  pre-­‐professional  education.  The   admissions  process  has  been  in  place  since  the  spring  of  2011  and  serves  the  need  to   document  SPC  requirements  arising  from  NAAB.  See  additional  comments  under  Subsection   C,  below.   5. Statement:  “The  recent  transfer  of  the  program’s  premier  study  abroad  program  from  its   long-­‐standing  base  in  Versailles  to  Barcelona.”   The  long-­‐standing  director  of  the  School’s  Versailles  Program  made  a  seamless  transition  to   the  directorship  of  the  Barcelona  Program.  The  coursework  in  Barcelona  remains  under  the   direction  of  the  School,  as  does  the  hiring  of  faculty  and  their  delivery  of  course  content.   The  director  of  the  Barcelona  Program  traveled  to  Champaign-­‐Urbana  during  the  NAAB   team  visit  and  was  available  for  consultation  throughout  the  time  the  Visiting  Team  was  on   campus.  The  Visiting  Team  chair  initially  asked  for  a  meeting  with  the  Barcelona  Program   director,  but  later  opted  not  to  have  the  meeting.     6. Statement:  “The  addition  of  several  new  faculty  members....”     The  number  of  new  faculty  hired  since  NAAB’s  last  site  visit  is  many  fewer  than  in  the   preceding  term  of  accreditation.  Hiring  new  faculty  is  a  natural  part  of  the  evolution  of  any   academic  program.  Faculty  retire  or  move  to  other  institutions  and  this  has  not  happened  at   an  unusual  rate  in  comparison  to  the  prior  decade.  If  anything,  this  is  a  healthy  sign  that   even  in  difficult  economic  times,  the  University  of  Illinois  at  Urbana-­‐Champaign  has  felt  it   important  to  grant  hires  to  the  School  based  on  the  strength  of  our  student  population.   7. Statement:  “The  recent  appointment  of  a  new  director....”     The  new  director  was  appointed  when  the  previous  director  concluded  a  second  five-­‐year   term.  The  previous  director’s  ten  years  as  the  School’s  executive  officer  is  consistent  with   the  two  terms  that  many  executive  officers  on  campus  can  be  expected  to  serve.  See   Subsection  B,  below,  for  additional  response.   8.   Statement:  “In  light  of  the  number  and  magnitude  of  changes  being  undertaken....”   See  following  editing  and  commentary:   In  light  of  the  number  and  magnitude  of  the  changes  being  undertaken,  the  visiting  team   has  several  concerns  regarding  the  program’s  future.  The  aspirational  nature  of  the(se)   changes  within  the  Illinois  School  of  Architecture  is  indicative  of  the  program’s  clear   intention  to  maintain  its  legacy  and  the  high  standards  it  has  historically  achieved.  Without    6   a  clearly  documented  plan  that  includes  milestones  to  guide  the  implementation  of  so  many   simultaneous  changes,  neither  faculty  nor  students  are  certain  of  their  path  forward.  (This   statement  should  be  struck,  as  the  indicated  plan  was  not  requested  in  advance  of  the   visit.  Moreover,  as  indicated  above,  it  would  have  been  possible  to  present  the  Curriculum   Committee’s  curriculum  development  plan  had  the  committee  been  consulted.  Finally,  as   indicated  above,  measures  to  evaluate  the  effectiveness  of  curricula  are  already  in  place   at  two  levels—the  School  and  the  campus.)  The  program  clearly  recognizes  that  these   changes  are  far  from  complete.  Some  changes,  for  example,  full  implementation  of  the  new   curriculum,  are  not  anticipated  earlier  than  the  2016  -­‐2017  academic  year.  The  visiting  team   has  reviewed  a  limited  number  of  examples  of  student  work  that  may  not  be  relevant,  given   curriculum  changes  immediately  on  the  program’s  horizon.  Other  changes  have  undergone   continual  adjustment  in  recent  years,  such  as  the  Studio  Culture  Policy  and  the  by-­‐laws,   which  raises  a  degree  of  uncertainty  in  the  academic  community.  (See  notes  above:  there  is   no  evidence  presented  by  the  team  that  there  is  uncertainty  in  the  academic  community   nor  was  this  the  topic  of  any  public  or  scheduled  meeting  with  between  the  team  and   those  in  faculty  leadership  positions.)  Other  changes  have  just  begun  to  be  implemented,   such  as  the  relocated  study  abroad  program  and  the  graduate  admissions  process,  with  the   result  being  that  their  effectiveness  is  unknown.  (See  comments  above.)  Therefore,  To   successfully  complete  the  implementation  of  this  process  of  change,  the  following  will  be   required:  transparency  in  decision-­‐making,  communication  of  the  progress  along  the  path   of  change,  and  the  mutual  trust  and  respect  that  need  to  be  extended  to  every  member  of   the  student  body,  staff,  and  faculty.   Causes  of  Concern,  Subsection  B   1.   Statement:  “The  program’s  director  joined  the  faculty  for  a  3-­‐year  term  less  than  1  year  ago   in  this  time  of  great  change.  The  visiting  team  shares  the  concern—expressed  by  members   of  the  academic  community—that  the  director’s  academic  expertise  is  not  within  the  body   of  knowledge,  skills,  or  traditions  of  architecture  or  its  professional  practice.”   The  above  statement  does  not  reflect  a  concern  of  the  academic  community  as  a  whole.   This  issue  was  not  raised  by  the  Visiting  Team  or  the  faculty  at  the  only  scheduled  meeting   between  the  School’s  faculty  at  large  and  the  team  (Sunday  evening).  At  no  other  time  was   the  faculty  as  a  whole  or  their  elected  leadership  given  an  opportunity  to  discuss  the   Director’s  role,  competence,  or  performance.  This  concern  should  not  listed  as  a  part  of  the   VTR  as  no  evidence  was  requested  or  collected  in  a  manner  consistent  with  the  collection  of   other  evidence  as  part  of  this  NAAB  team  visit.  The  NAAB  Visiting  Team  agenda  was  created   by  the  NAAB  team  chair  and  did  not  include  meetings  with  the  two  groups  of  faculty  leaders   who  represent  the  faculty  and  who  are  identified  through  a  democratic  election  process,   the  Executive  Committee  and  the  Program  Chairs.   Director  Mortensen  was  appointed  to  a  three-­‐year  position  by  the  Board  of  Trustees,  upon   recommendation  of  the  Dean  of  the  College  of  Fine  and  Applied  Arts,  for  the  following   specific  purposes  (along  with  the  general  leadership  and  governance  of  the  School):    7   • Assist  and  provide  leadership  in  the  2015  NAAB  Accreditation.   • Set  the  School  up  for  a  successful  external  search  for  Director  who  is  an  area-­‐expert  and   who  has  requisite  leadership  skills.   • Assist  in  the  transition  and  changes  associated  with  the  new  by-­‐laws  and  policies  and   procedures  and  guide  the  School  in  its  endeavors  to  continue  to  transform  these   documents  to  ensure  positive  outputs  within  the  School  and  compliance  within  the   University  structure.   • He  has,  to  date,  performed  admirably  and  remained  on  task.  He  represents  the  School   well  and  consults  regularly  with  the  faculty  leadership  of  the  school  who  have  area   expertise.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  he  will  not  continue  to  lead  and  represent  the   School  in  a  credible  manner.  There  is  no  evidence  that,  by  his  pedigree  or  other,  there   exists  Cause  for  Concern.