Academic Policy

Policy for the Use of Credit for Prior Learning

May 14, 2020

Dear Colleague:

The purpose of this brief is to update you on CUNY’s efforts to design, develop, and implement — once approved by the Board of Trustees — a university-wide Policy for the Use of Credit for Prior Learning.   To provide more information about these efforts, I have enclosed the following:

• Technical Guidance Memorandum OAA-20-03: This document presents definitions for important terms, lists the principles and procedures that will guide policy implementation, itemizes approved methods and tools for assessing prior learning — ranging from the use of standardized examinations to the assessment of experiential portfolios, and considerations related to policy oversight and evaluation.
• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) OAA-20-03: These FAQs bring together responses to many of the questions that CUNY’s Office of Academic Affairs (OAA) has received about the proposed policy as it has consulted with stakeholders about these plans. The FAQs will become part of official OAA policy regarding the Policy for the Use of Credit for Prior Learning; they will be posted online and updated continuously to address additional questions or clarify practices.

The policy represents an important move toward ensuring consistency and equity in the awarding of credits for prior college-level learning across CUNY colleges. The contents of the enclosed documents detail the immediate policy requirements, that all CUNY colleges will be required to accept consistent scores on four nationally-normed standardized exams (AICE, DSST, DLPT, CLEP, along with pre-established policy for IB and AP exams). Additionally, it details approved methods/tools that colleges will adopt over the next 12-18 months with necessary input from faculty and procedural planning by administrative staff. For these more phased policy components, which include non-collegiate credit evaluators and institutionally prepared exams (as well as the option to offer portfolio assessment), all colleges will be invited to participate in the development of university-wide standards and criteria, beginning this summer and into the 2020-2021 academic year. While this policy primarily addresses the need for fair and consistent assessment of prior learning at the undergraduate level, there is interest in exploring similar assessment processes at the graduate level, particularly in the health science professions.  As this infrastructure takes shape, the policy will become a central fixture of our collective commitment to supporting academic momentum, timely degree completion, and overall access to high-quality, affordable education.

The need for a Policy for the Use of Credit for Prior Learning was first discussed in September 12, 2018 by the Academic Policy Committee (APC) as part of a meeting agenda item titled “alternative methods for earning university credit.”  The discussion extended over 6 subsequent APC meetings (October 2018-May 2019) and expanded into other important forums including the Council of Presidents (COPS) Academic Affairs Committee (March 20, 2019), the Council of Chief Academic Officers (April 10, 2019), COPS (April 3, 2019), Faculty Advisory Council (April 5, 2019), Council of Registrars (April 5, 2019), Council of Undergraduate Education (CUE, May 2, 2019), University Faculty Senate (UFS) Academic Affairs Committee (May 3, 2019), UFS Faculty Governance Leaders (May 24, 2019), Council of Chief Student Affairs Officers (May 9, 2019), Transfer Evaluation and Articulation Management Systems Group (June 10, 2019), Adult Learning Summit (June 20, 2019), UFS Budget Committee (June 21, 2019), and the Adult Degree Completion Network (February 2020).

The proposed policy reflects extensive research, consultation with experts, and exploration of exemplary models for awarding credit for prior learning. A key adviser in this process is Dr. Nan Travers, Director of the Center for Leadership in Credentialing Learning at SUNY Empire State College, who is widely recognized as an expert and innovator in the field and works closely with many institutions and systems to help guide policy and practice. From the earliest drafts of this policy, Dr. Travers has provided crucial feedback and recommendations, and served as a panelist during a Credit for Prior Learning session at CUNY’s 2019 Adult Learner Summit, where she offered valuable external perspective alongside CUNY’s own expert practitioners in their call for a policy that is consistent, student-friendly, and compliant with standards for accreditation and transparency. These internal voices—particularly from Lehman College’s Adult Degree Program and CUNY School of Professional Studies, along with other representatives from CUNY’s Adult Degree Completion Network—have been important reviewers and sounding boards for the policy, based on their own experiences at CUNY colleges and previous institutions.

The policy also reflects best practices and insights culled from the Council on Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL), including published reports on effectiveness of different prior learning assessment methods, academic outcomes, and case studies of state/system approaches, as well as the participation of CUNY representatives at CAEL’s annual conference in 2019, which included a day-long session on Building the Foundations of a PLA Program and networking opportunities with colleagues from established or emerging programs across the country. Additionally, as the groundwork for this policy is building internal momentum, it is also opening doors for CUNY to be part of broader related conversations—Chancellor Matos Rodriguez was appointed by the American Council on Education (ACE) to a task force on improving credit transfer, and Lucinda Zoe, CUNY’s Senior University Dean for Academic Programs, is serving on an advisory board for a Lumina Foundation grant, Credential As You Go, through which Dr. Travers will conduct research and develop a proposal for a national campaign towards an incremental credentialing system. Through this effort, CUNY will also be at the table for discussions with NYSED and SUNY to explore state-level credentialing.

The input received through the stakeholder engagement described above has been thoroughly incorporated into the design, development, and implementation considerations presented in the attached technical guidance memorandum and FAQs document.  Given the importance of this policy, the Office of Academic Affairs is now embarking on a second round of input gathering prior to finalizing the proposed policy and implementation plans, as described below.

APRIL

• April 15 – Policy packet distributed to the following stakeholder groups, inviting feedback in writing by April 22:
  • Academic policy committee
  • Academic council
  • Enrollment management council
  • Student affairs council
  • Council of presidents
  • University Student Senate Chair

 

• April 22 – Deadline for stakeholder groups to submit feedback to Office of Academic Affairs

MAY

• May 6 – A revised policy draft incorporating feedback from stakeholder groups will be distributed for final review
• May 15 – Deadline for OAA to submit final policy materials to Board Office for review

 

JUNE

• June 8 – OAA presents formal resolution to CAPPR
• June 29 – Policy presented for approval at Full Board effective immediately

 

ACADEMIC YEAR 2020-21

• CUNY will convene a task force comprised of administrative and faculty representatives, to engage in a process guided by a national expert to create a set of university-wide standards and criteria that provide both the necessary consistency and flexibility for implementation. A faculty training initiative will establish a network of faculty members who will guide their college’s implementation of both process and principles for mapping credit for prior learning to curriculum.

The approval and implementation of a Policy for the Use of Credit for Prior Learning is consistent with our University’s longstanding mission of providing all New Yorkers with access to affordable and excellent higher education, inasmuch CUNY has a responsibility to widen paths of entry and degree completion for working adults, including the 800,000 in New York City with some college and no degree, many of whom have acquired college-level learning in non-traditional settings.  Further, during the highly unusual times in which we find presently find ourselves, it is clear that there are likely to be many more CUNY students whose academic momentum is in jeopardy (including some of CUNY’s neediest students), as well as a potential influx of out-of-work New Yorkers who are interested in restarting their education. The university would be better equipped to serve both populations at a critical juncture with a policy that enables faster, more affordable paths to degree completion. A few examples:

• For students facing financial hardship, colleges accepting CLEP and other standardized exams could help students continue earning credits even if they are forced to scale back or pause their course-taking for upcoming terms.
• For students unable to successfully transition to distance learning this semester, standardized tests could provide options for maintaining progress and avoiding setbacks.
• The ability to earn credit for qualified work experience at CUNY colleges could appeal to unemployed professionals who might otherwise turn to private/for-profit institutions.
• With the number of summer school courses possibly limited and only offered in an on-line format, offering credit by examination will give students more options to persist toward degree completion over the next few months.

In an increasingly complex higher education landscape and with unprecedented challenges facing the university and the community it serves, CUNY must adapt to become more welcoming to these significant and growing populations that deserve the opportunity for a college education. This is a crucial moment for CUNY to open its doors more widely and provide students with recognition for knowledge already acquired through prior experience and education, and the Policy for the Use of Credit for Prior Learning is an important component of this new reality for our university.

Please share this letter and its enclosures with interested faculty and staff. Note that readers will likely want to refer to the FAQ document after they have read the technical guidance memorandum because it contains a great deal of information. Your written feedback is requested by Wednesday, April 22, 2020 and can be submitted to [email protected].

Your input on the impact and implementation of this new policy is critical to its success, and I encourage you to reach out to me and my office with any concerns that you and your team may have. As always, I look forward to the hard, important work ahead.

Sincerely,

José Luis Cruz
Executive Vice Chancellor and University Provost

Policy for the Use of Credit for Prior Learning

1) PREAMBLE

The City University of New York recognizes the value of prior learning in the achievement of academic goals and acknowledges a student’s right to clear and concise information concerning how Prior Learning Credit (PLA Credit) might help them meet their full potential.  As such, it is the University’s policy that a student’s college level learning shall be evaluated for college credit at the student’s request.

Through this policy, the University accepts the following educational principles:

1. 1. Learning occurs both within formal educational settings and outside the classroom. Recognizing all learning as valuable supports diverse pathways to degree attainment.
   2. The criteria for evaluation of such learning should take into consideration the educational goals which are identified by the student, as well as institutional and CUNY requirements.
   3. Evaluation of prior learning should provide substantive information about the knowledge and competencies, the individual possesses.

To this end, the University’s Minimum PLA Credit standards shall be based on the following criteria:

1. 1. The prior learning shall be assessed in accordance with national standards and best practices for college level credit.
   2. Prior learning shall be assessed and awarded through challenge exams, standardized testing, the recommendations of nationally recognized non-collegiate credit evaluators and portfolio evaluation.
   3. The credits earned through accepted PLA credit methods shall be treated equally in their application towards degrees and use in course equivalencies as that of credit bearing college courses.
   4. The PLA Credit granted shall be accepted as transfer credit by all of the CUNY colleges. The college doing the original assessment will evaluate the knowledge, preferably as course equivalents but certainly as general elective credit.  Any subsequent college will accept the credits as a transfer course but may convert general elective credit to a course.  No college, however, may convert to elective credit a PLA exam or course assessed by another institution as a course equivalent.
   5. The knowledge and skills being assessed shall fulfill degree requirements. If the assessment does not apply to unfulfilled general education, major requirements or electives, the college does not have to accept the credits toward the degree. It must fulfill a degree requirement.

And the University’s award of credit through acceptable PLA Credit methodologies will be as follows:

1. 1. Credit shall be awarded by all colleges and schools at CUNY.
   2. Credit shall be awarded when they apply towards degree requirements (major, general education or electives).
   3. Since PLA Credit is viewed as a form of transfer credit, it shall not be utilized to fulfill institutional residency requirements. Students will be required to complete successfully the minimum number of credits in coursework offered by the college or school awarding their degree.
   4. The cost of assessing student learning for PLA Credit shall be standardized across all CUNY colleges as determined by the Chancellor or designee and approved by the Board of Trustees.

2) PURPOSE

The Policy for the Use of Credit for Prior Learning will establish university-wide policy for awarding credit for college level learning acquired through

1. 1. degree- and non-degree granting institutions;
   2. university and college based continuing education programs;
   3. professional and military training;
   4. work and life experiences; and
   5. other non-collegiate opportunities for learning.

This policy will engage CUNY faculty in the clarification of credit equivalencies as they relate to the specific institution’s curriculum as well as the student’s selected program of study. Faculty and campus-based administrators will be invited to participate in the design of a student appeal process, in order to help ensure transparency and equity for students.

3) SCOPE, PROCEDURES AND TIMELINE

The Policy for the Use of Credit for Prior Learning applies to all colleges of The City University of New York.  The Chancellor shall promulgate procedures as necessary to implement this policy.

The awarding of credit for the various nationally recognized standardized examinations will be implemented immediately, but colleges and schools will be permitted to phase in the requirement of awarding credit for non-credit coursework as they establish campus-based procedures to do so and in alignment with university-wide standards and criteria that will be developed during the 2020/2021 academic year.

The awarding of credit via portfolio, while encouraged, remains voluntary at this time.

4) GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR IMPLEMENTATION

The Policy for the Use of Credit for Prior Learning sets the principles, definitions, criteria and guidelines to assist institutional officials in validating learning achieved through non-traditional educational environments.  In recognition of the need to evaluate learning acquired from other sources such as, but not limited to non-degree granting organizations, university and college-based continuing education programs, as well as professional and military training programs, the City University of New York will adopt the following principles, policies and implementation guidelines.

1. 1. The University shall provide a systematic and comparable means through which students shall be awarded academic credit for prior learning.
   2. CUNY policy shall assure the maintenance of uniform academic standards regarding the evaluation of prior learning and provide for uniform transfer of credit for prior learning between and among CUNY institutions.
   3. These policies and practices will include provisions for oversight and periodic evaluation to protect the integrity and credibility of this program and academic credits.
   4. Students eligible to receive credit for prior learning must be matriculated or be matriculating at the institution awarding the credit.
   5. While general elective credit may be given, it should be understood that in the interest of accurate recognition of learning as well as being welcoming to adult students, every effort should be made to give credit for specific courses or disciplines in the college’s offerings. General elective credit should be given only when no other option is available.
   6. Credits for demonstrated knowledge earned through any prior learning method do not fulfill the college’s or school’s residency requirements.
   7. Credit for prior learning, must apply towards degree requirements and once recorded at a CUNY institution, is transferable to another CUNY institution on the same basis as if the credit had been earned through regular study at the awarding institution.
   8. Institutions shall only award specific course credit for prior learning in disciplines in which they have faculty expertise, although general elective credit may be given for prior learning achieved outside the bounds of the institution’s collective expertise.
   9. Institutions shall assign their own course title and number to the credit awarded and the neutral grades of CR (credit) shall be utilized to designate credit awarded for prior learning. Conventional letter grades shall not be used.
   10. All awarded credit for prior learning shall be appropriately identified by source and method on the transcript by University-wide codes established by the University Registrar.
   11. Credits assessed and awarded by one CUNY institution will transfer to every other CUNY institution. Applicability of the credit award at any subsequent college or school is dependent upon the requirements of the individual student’s program of study.   Hence, credits awarded and applied at an institution may or may not, as is the case with all credits earned prior to enrolling at an institution, be they credit bearing courses or not, be applicable to the program of study at another institution, depending upon the student’s degree requirements and the number of elective credits in the program of study at the transfer institution.

5) APPROVED METHODS AND TOOLS FOR ASSESSING PRIOR LEARNING

CUNY institutions will award credit for prior learning by reviewing and validating the learning on an individual basis using recognized or approved tools and methods. While the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and University Provost will regularly promulgate the list of standardized examinations and national and international credentials, at this time the following nationally recognized methods shall be used for validating prior learning for the purposes of awarding credit:

A. Standardized Examinations – Nationally recognized examinations are used to validate prior learning from non-collegiate schools as well as independent learning. Examination scores, used to validate prior learning, must meet or exceed the minimums recommended by ACE for national examinations. Those minimums are: a four (on a seven-point scale) in the Higher-Level course in the International Baccalaureate Organization Diploma Program, and a grade level of C or better for locally developed examinations that validate non-technical coursework. Cutoff scores for locally developed and administered advanced standing examinations shall be established. If a student achieves the score listed on an AP, AICE, IB, DSST, DLPT, or CLEP exam, CUNY institutions shall award credit even if they do not offer the subject area.

1. 1. Credit by examination may not duplicate credit previously earned through non-collegiate courses, examinations or through postsecondary courses in which a transferrable grade has been earned.
   2. If an exam is not listed, the awarding of credit is at the discretion of the institution.
   3. Institutions may not award credit for scores below those listed.
   4. Credit for prior learning, once recorded at a CUNY institution, is transferable on the same basis as if the credit had been earned through regular study at the awarding institution.
   5. For purposes of quality control and consistency across the university, no college may award credit for any scored or graded PLA tool when a student earns less than the published score or grade.

Below is the list of approved standardized examinations by this policy.

1. 1. Advanced Placement (AP). Advanced Placement exams are curriculum-based, and generally are taken after students complete the corresponding Advanced Placement course in high school. Advanced Placement courses are challenging, college-level courses that are designed to parallel typical lower-level undergraduate courses. Exams are developed by committees of college and secondary faculty and are given to test groups of students in actual college courses to determine appropriate passing scores.    More information about Advanced Placement, including descriptions of courses and sample examination questions, is available at http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/Controller.jpf. The CUNY Board of Trustees adopted a policy in 2017, that all undergraduate colleges and schools at the University shall grant course credit for advanced placement courses offered in secondary schools provided the student scores 3 or above on the advanced placement test. (BTM Policy 1.071 Advanced Placement)
   2. Advanced International Certificate of Education Program (AICE). The AICE program is an international, advanced secondary curriculum and assessment program equivalent to the British system of “A-Levels.” AS-Level courses are comprised of curricula lasting one academic year. A-Level courses encompass all AS-Level curriculum as well as additional topics. A-Level coursework is completed over two academic years. Information about the program, including course syllabi, can be found on-line at http://www.cie.org.uk/countries/usa. Credits shall be awarded for grades of E or better (US equivalent of C or better).
   3. DSST (DANTES). The DSST exams, unlike Advanced Placement, are not built around curricula, but rather are designed to test students’ knowledge on a variety of college-level subjects, regardless of where they may have learned the material. Exams are developed by committees of college faculty. More information about DSSTs, including descriptions of test content and sample examination questions, is available at http://www.getcollegecredit.com/.  Credits shall be awarded for minimum score of 400 on Criterion Referenced test or 45 on Norm Referenced test.
   4. Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT). As part of the Army Training and Doctrine Command, the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (http://www.dliflc.edu/) provides resident instruction at the Presidio of Monterey in two dozen languages, five days a week, seven hours per day, with two to three hours of homework each night. Courses last from 26 to 64 weeks, depending on the difficulty of the language. DLIFLC is a multi-service school for active and reserve components, foreign military students, and civilian personnel working in the federal government and various law enforcement agencies. To attend DLIFLC one must be a member of the Armed Forces or be sponsored by a government agency. DLIFLC students are taught by approximately 1,800 highly educated instructors, 98 percent of whom are native speakers of the languages they teach. Aside from classroom instruction, faculty also write course materials, design tests called the Defense Language Proficiency Test, and conduct research and analysis. Credits shall be awarded for minimum score of 3.
   5. College Level Examination Program (CLEP). The College-Level Examination Program, unlike Advanced Placement, is not built around a curriculum, but rather is designed to test students’ knowledge on a variety of college-level subjects, regardless of where they may have learned the material. CLEP exams are developed by committees of college faculty who design questions based on what is typically covered in lower-level college courses and who set passing standards for the exams. More information about CLEP, including recent test information guides, can be found online at http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/clep/about.html. Credits shall be awarded for minimum score of 50.
   6. Higher Level courses in the International Baccalaureate (IB) Organization Diploma Program. The International Baccalaureate program is a challenging curriculum offered in high schools around the world that is designed to prepare students for advanced work in many countries’ postsecondary systems. Many subjects have both Standard Level (SL) and Higher Level (HL) versions, which are taught over two academic years and typically require additional specialized research or independent work. More information about the IB program is available at http://www.ibo.org/. The CUNY Board of Trustees adopted a policy in 2017, that all undergraduate colleges at the University will award 30 credits to students who have completed an International Baccalaureate (IB) diploma with a score of 30 or higher. Students who have completed an IB diploma with a score of 29 or less and students who did not complete a diploma will be guaranteed credit for higher-level IB exams with scores of “5” or better. The credit awarded will apply toward the overall number of credits required for graduation and in some cases toward major and general education requirements, as determined by each college. (BTM Policy 1.192 International Baccalaureate Transfer Credit Award)

While not mandatory, colleges may also opt to use Excelsior College Exams (UEXCEL) to award credit.  All credits awarded via UExcel must transfer from one institution to another as with all other PLA credits.  These examinations are developed by Excelsior College which was founded in 1971 by the New York State Board of Regents and was then known as the Regents External Degree Program.  Excelsior College uses national committees of faculty consultants and national studies to assess how well their tests measure the performance of students in actual college courses. UExcel examinations are approved by the American Council on Education and Excelsior College itself is accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (MSACS).  Credits shall be awarded for minimum grade of C. More detailed information about Excelsior College Examinations can be found on-line at the following sites:

• • https://www.excelsior.edu/Excelsior_College/Excelsior_College_Examinations
  • http://www.uexceltest.com/about-uexcel

B. Non-collegiate Credit Evaluators – Noncredit coursework taken within or outside the realm of degree granting institutions, such as in rigorous employer and military training and education programs or continuing education programs offered at universities and colleges, is evaluated by nationally recognized organizations who offer a recommended credit equivalency to degree granting institutions.

1. 1. American Council on Education (ACE) Guide to Evaluation of Educational Experiences in the Armed Forces, National Guide to College Credit for Workforce Training, and ACE recommendations of college credit by examination, as well as ACE credit recommendations on the Joint Service Transcript, and other publications as recommended by ACE. When evaluating programs offered by the armed forces, the following military records shall be used by college academic departments to verify successful completion of military service, and military training courses:
      1. 1. Army/American Council on Education Registry Transcript System (“AARTS”).
         2. Sailor/Marine American Council on Education Registry Transcript (“SMART”).
         3. Community College for the Air Force (“CCAF”) transcript.
         4. Coast Guard Institute Military Education Transcript.
         5. DD Form 295, Application for the Evaluation of Learning Experiences During Military Service. Military Education offices can provide this form to active-duty and reservists. This form must be certified by an authorized commissioned officer or his/her designee.
         6. DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge for Active Duty.
   2. The University of the State of New York’s National College Credit Recommendation Service (NCCRS). Formerly known as National PONSI (Programs on Non-collegiate Sponsored Instruction) operates in a similar manner as ACE, evaluating non-credit coursework and offering recommendations for college credit equivalencies.

C. Institutionally Prepared Assessments: Institutionally prepared assessments of prior learning such as challenge or final examinations as well as a faculty expert’s analysis of a course syllabus, may be used to review non-credit certificate or training programs when no recognized evaluator is available. These assessments should be developed and conducted by qualified faculty with content expertise. The institutional procedures used to validate prior learning should be objective to the extent that external evaluators would reach the same conclusion and are in line with national norms and standards. The University Implementation Committee will set up guidelines for the development of this type of assessment, but the colleges and schools will be responsible for overseeing the quality control and successful implementation of these assessments. The University will maintain a list of assessments of these non-collegiate courses of study and credit will be granted accordingly as needed.  Credit bearing coursework taken at an institution accredited by a body not recognized by the college or school may be assessed for PLA credit by a qualified member of the faculty.

6) AWARDING CREDITS FOR PRIOR LEARNING THROUGH PORTFOLIO DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT

CUNY encourages its colleges and schools to recognize that college level learning may occur though unstructured educational opportunities such as professional work, extensive travel, and volunteer opportunities, or through self-study and that college credit may be awarded for that knowledge.  Colleges may opt to evaluate and award credit for prior learning through a portfolio assessment process managed by an academic department, program or office at the institution or the college may opt to use the portfolio assessment methodology of the Council of Adult and Experiential Learning’s (CAEL) https://learningcounts.org. Consistent with the policy on credit via standardized examinations, credit for prior learning assessment by means of a portfolio should preferably be through a course-equivalency model, however general elective credit may be given. Students demonstrate college-level learning by submitting a portfolio consisting of an organized collection of evidence that demonstrates mastery of the learning outcomes of a specific course offered at the Institution.  Institutions that choose to award credit by portfolio assessment must follow the guidelines outlined here. Additional policies, models, standards and guidance will be developed by the central administration in consultation with faculty.

1. 1. Knowledge and experiences eligible for credit as courses or electives by internal portfolio assessment are determined by the department that offers courses in the respective content area.
   2. All portfolio assessments will be completed by discipline-appropriate faculty trained in assessing portfolios for credit. Departments offering prior learning assessment by portfolio will establish rubrics to guide faculty assessment and scoring.
   3. Fees shall be consistently applied throughout the university and will cover transcription as well as administration. These will be posted on the CUNY OAA/PLA website.
   4. Credit for prior learning, once recorded at a CUNY institution, is transferable on the same basis as if the credit had been earned through regular study at the awarding institution.

7) OVERSIGHT AND EVALUATION

To protect the integrity and credibility of this policy, CUNY institutions shall make detailed entries of all PLA awards into CUNYfirst in accordance with coding designed by the Office of the University Registrar:

1. 1. Documentation for all credit awarded for prior learning, to include the method(s) used, the classification of the credits awarded, the amount of credit awarded by each method, and the total number of credit hours awarded through this policy.
   2. Summary information of credit awarded through prior learning assessments will be regularly queried and monitored by the OAA.

8) SUMMARY OF THE ACTION PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION, OVERSIGHT AND EVALUATION OF THE POLICY FOR THE USE OF CREDIT FOR PRIOR LEARNING

Subsequent to the approval by the CUNY Board of Trustees, the Chancellery will direct the central office to oversee the following subsequent actions that will follow, in order to assure the successful implementation, oversight and evaluation of this policy.

1. 1. The University Implementation Committee, comprised of faculty and staff from the campuses as well as central office personnel, will be established to address the following topics:
      1. Uniform implementation policies that consider individual campus needs;
      2. Uniform fee structure for the operational costs of specific PLA activities where appropriate;
      3. Uniform PLA student appeal process that promotes transparency and equity;
      4. Guidance for campuses who wish to develop internal assessment tools for educational experiences for which there is no existing tool;
      5. Monitor the implementation of campus-based procedures, in alignment with University standards, for awarding credit for non-credit coursework by the end of the 2020/2021 academic year.
   2. The central Office of Academic Affairs:
      1. Through its Office of Academic Programs and Policy, will maintain and update a list of acceptable standardized examinations and international and national credentials as well as other approved resources for the evaluation of non-credit coursework;
      2. Through its Office of Continuing Education and Workforce Development in conjunction with the Office of Academic Program Review will maintain a list of campus-based evaluations of educational experiences where no external evaluation was available;
      3. Through its Office of the University Registrar, will develop standardized CUNYfirst coding for purposes of clearly and uniformly recording PLA experiences on students’ transcripts;
      4. Through its Office of Academic Programs and Policy and the Office of the University Registrar, will periodically monitor the compliance with and success of the implementation of this policy on each campus.

Policy for the Use of Credit for Prior Learning

This Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document provides further detail related to the Academic Policy Brief OAA-20-03 and Technical Guidance Implementation Procedures OAA-20-03. The content below reflects responses to questions CUNY’s Office of Academic Affairs (OAA) has received from a range of college and Central Office stakeholders regarding the planned implementation of CUNY’s Policy for the Use of Credit for Prior Learning.

For the purposes of implementation, these FAQs are part of official OAA policy regarding credit for prior learning. OAA will update the FAQs on a regular basis as we continue to receive feedback from stakeholders.

If you have questions about credit for prior learning practices and policies, please contact [email protected].

PLA Credit

1. What is PLA Credit? The learning addressed in this policy is defined as college level knowledge or skills that have been attained outside a traditional academic environment and that have not been previously evaluated or awarded college credit. Credit for prior learning is referred to as “PLA” (prior learning assessment) at times throughout the policy.
2. How do students acquire “Prior Learning”? “Prior Learning” is acquired both within and outside of the sponsorship of legally authorized postsecondary and higher education institutions accredited as degree-granting institutions. The term applies to learning acquired from, but not limited to, professional and externally validated certificate and licenses, military training, open source learning, or other forms of work/life experience where college-level learning can be demonstrated through an approved method of assessment.
3. What counts as a “transcript” for purposes of this policy? “Transcript” is the official document issued by an institution with student information that is a complete and accurate reflection of a student’s academic career. It includes information such as GPA, semesters of attendance, courses taken, grades and credit hours awarded, degrees received, academic standing, academic honors, and transfer information.

Institutional Impact

1. Will the awarding of credit for prior learning decrease students/revenue for the colleges or university? While this should not be a consideration in determining whether or not a student can demonstrate prior learning, the answer is no. Evidence indicates that awarding credit for prior learning stands to increase enrollment (by appealing to new markets of prospective students) and improve retention and graduation rates—factors that will contribute to increased tuition revenue for colleges. In the 2010 CAEL report “Fueling the Race to Post-Secondary Success,” data from 62,475 students at the 48 postsecondary institutions show that students who earned credit for prior learning (“PLA students”) had better academic outcomes, particularly in terms of graduation rates and persistence, than other adult students. Many PLA students also shortened the time required to earn a degree, depending on the number of credits for prior learning earned. Examples of findings include: a) More than half (56%) of PLA students earned a postsecondary degree within seven years, while only 21 percent of non-PLA students did so; b) PLA students (both degree-earners and non-degree earners) earned an average of 53.7 credits in institutional coursework (as opposed to credit accumulation from PLA credits or transfer credits), compared to an average of 43.8 credits by non-PLA students; and, c) Sixty percent (60%) of non-PLA students without degrees did not earn credit beyond one year of study, while higher percentages of PLA students without degrees re-enrolled and earned credits in the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth years.
2. What will be the timeline for implementation of this policy? Although colleges and schools may begin awarding credit for PLA now, once the CUNY Board of Trustees approves this policy, all institutions will be expected to begin awarding credit for qualifying standardized exams scores for students entering in Fall 2020 as well as for currently enrolled CUNY students. For other specified methods of awarding credit for prior learning, including non-collegiate credit evaluators and institutionally prepared exams, colleges will be expected to phase in processes for awarding credit over the subsequent 12-18 months. During this time, CUNY will convene a prior learning recognition committee to lead the creation of university-wide standards and criteria to help guide this implementation work . The awarding of credit via portfolio assessment, while encouraged, will be voluntary on a campus by campus basis.

Faculty Role

1. What would a prior learning recognition committee look and act like for this implementation? Beginning in Summer 2020, CUNY will convene a task force comprised of administrative and faculty representatives, to engage in a process guided by a national expert to create both a set of university-wide academic standards and a uniform fee schedule as well as  criteria that provide both the necessary consistency and flexibility to implement CUNY’s Policy for the Use of Credit for Prior Learning. A faculty training initiative will establish a network of faculty members who will guide their college’s implementation of both process and principles for mapping credit for prior learning to courses and/or curriculum areas.

Transferability of Credits and Residency Requirements

1. How many transfer credits may be allowed, and will they go to core requirements and/or electives? Is there a maximum number of PLA credits a student can receive?   Each college has a residency requirement which informs the maximum number of transfer credits allowed toward a degree. Yes, transfer credits of all kinds may, when appropriate, be applied to general education requirements. Since PLA credits are considered a form of transfer credits, they will be combined with credit bearing transfer courses in calculating the maximum number of allowable transfer credits.   Institutions will not be permitted to limit the number of PLA credits awarded for each instrument (eg. CLEP, ACE evaluation) a student is permitted beyond the degree and major residency requirements of the college or school.
   
2. If a student receives credit for prior learning at one CUNY campus, will that credit transfer over to another CUNY college? Yes.  Prior learning credits will be entered onto the student transcript as a course equivalent, a General Education curriculum area equivalent, or as elective credit.   If a student transfers to another CUNY college, those credits will transfer in the same manner as other transfer credit. This is determined primarily by the requirements of the degree program at the receiving school.

Evaluation of Prior Learning

1. Can departmental challenge exams be an alternative to student portfolios? Challenge exams are noted under criteria for University-wide Minimum PLA Credit standards in the technical guidance memorandum. Colleges can permit departments the option to offer a challenge exam to a student who believes they have skills/learning of a course, particularly in a subject area that would not be well-served by a portfolio (math and foreign language subjects are two examples).
2. What options exist for a student interested in portfolio assessment who attends a CUNY college that does not offer evaluation and awarding of credit for this form of prior learning?  Students must be matriculated at an institution to take advantage of credits by portfolio assessment.  Since, at this time, portfolio assessment is not mandatory, prospective student should consider this prior to application and enrollment.
3. How do college decide how many credits to award? ACE and NCCRS offer credit recommendations for non-credit programs and credentials and providers of standardized college-level exams offer either credit recommendations or course equivalencies.  We anticipate that locally developed challenge exams would match the learning outcomes to particular courses and award corresponding credit.
4. Will challenge exams be offered/developed/administered locally by colleges or university-wide? In the absence of a nationally recognized assessment of non-credit coursework campuses who wish to award credit may develop their own assessment tools.   Credits earned on the basis of the local tool will be transferable in the same manner as all other transfer credits.
5. What is the process for prior learning that takes place in NYC and NYS correctional facilities, to be recognized for credit at CUNY campuses? The process is the same. Any program evaluated by ACE or NCCRS will be recognized by CUNY campuses, regardless of where that program is administered. We encourage the correctional facilities to have any programs not yet evaluated by ACE or NCCRS to submit their curricula for review. In the absence of either organizations’ recommendation, an individual college would be free to do its own assessment of the curriculum.

Student Experience

1. How will students learn about credit for prior learning opportunities across CUNY? Over the course of the next year, CUNY will develop a centralized website with information about college-by-college offerings (which will be updated to reflect ongoing implementation). Colleges will also be encouraged to develop web content that reflects their specific offerings and processes.
2. What will be the cost to students who utilize credit for prior learning? There will be no cost to the student for the immediate directive of awarding credit for standardized examinations. Over the course of the next year, the CUNY Credit for Prior Learning Committee will determine a university wide fee structure informed by a cost/revenue analysis and equity for other, more labor-intensive forms of PLA for interested students.
3. Who is eligible to utilize the credit for prior learning policy at CUNY colleges? Consistent with the rest of this policy, students will have to be matriculated at the institution offering portfolio guidance and credit.  Other eligibility criteria may be imposed upon participating students. In addition, consistent with this policy, once credit is awarded by a CUNY institution by any means of prior learning assessment, those credits will transfer within the system.
4. If a student changes their major, either at their native CUNY college or upon transfer, how will credits that were previously awarded for prior learning apply to course requirements in the student’s new program? Credits previously awarded for prior learning will be applied in the same manner as credits earned through coursework in the original major: students will receive credit where the courses are applicable to their new degree program requirements and as elective credits in cases where not applicable to the new requirements.
5. What are the policy’s benefits to CUNY students? The Policy for Use of Credit for Prior Learning will allow eligible students to save time and money (including financial aid resources) by demonstrating college-level knowledge through approved, consistent means of assessment. The policy will ensure equitable opportunities for students to earn and transfer these credits; it will recognize that all learning — both in formal educational settings and outside the classroom — is valuable; and it will support both the expedition of and diverse pathways to, degree attainment in ways that are essential to CUNY’s mission.
6. Will students be awarded credit for standardized examinations and noncredit courses taken after they matriculate at a college or only for PLA completed prior to admission? Life long learning is just that – life long.   For example, students may be required to take a training course for their job or may spend a summer studying for a CLEP exam.  Any student, at any point in their undergraduate career at CUNY, may take advantage of this policy.   Students who voluntarily plan to engage in PLA activities should confirm that the credits will apply to their academic degree program prior to commencing with them.

Portfolio Assessment – Campus Implementation

1. What are the expectations for college-level implementation of portfolio assessment? At this time, the University is not mandating portfolio assessment for purposes of awarding credit of any college or school. Over the course of the next year, a university-wide committee of faculty and administrators as well as central office colleagues, will develop standards and criteria on a variety of implementation points for the overall policy, including both requirements and recommended best practices. This group’s work will include developing guidance and possible models for colleges who are offering portfolio assessment as a means of awarding credit.  The hope is that colleges and schools will voluntarily decide to add portfolio assessment to its prior learning methodologies when they are ready.
2. What are the potential benefits to colleges that choose to offer portfolio assessment? We anticipate that colleges offering portfolio assessment will attract more working adults and other applicants with less traditional academic trajectories, making this an enrollment opportunity for those CUNY colleges that opt to make this part of their credit for prior learning services.
3. Which campus offices will be involved in the administration of credit for prior learning? As with any academic policy, there is some discretion with respect to which office is responsible for implementation, depending upon the organizational structure of each college.
4. What will be the cost to students who utilize credit for prior learning? Over the course of the next year, the committee will determine a university wide fee structure informed by a cost/revenue analysis and equity for interested students.
5. Who is eligible to utilize credit for prior learning at CUNY colleges? Consistent with the rest of this policy, students will have to be matriculated at the institution offering portfolio guidance and credit.  Other eligibility criteria may be imposed upon participating students. In addition, consistent with this policy, once credit is awarded by a CUNY institution by any means of prior learning assessment, those credits will transfer within the system.

The following is a compilation of questions about implementation of CUNY’s Policy for Credit for Prior Learning, with responses from the university’s Offices of Academic Affairs and University Registrar. Please direct additional questions to [email protected].

QUESTIONS ABOUT TECHNICAL REGISTRAR MATTERS

1. Is there a recency requirement for exams? Do exam scores expire?
   • There is not a recency requirement. Exam scores are valid from any date.
2. Is there a limit on the total number of credits accepted from all sources?
   • All students must fulfill the residency requirement for the degree being earned and where applicable, for the major as well, with coursework taken at the institution granting the degree. Courses taken at other institutions, credit by exam, credit for non-credit coursework and credit by portfolio DO NOT count toward the residency requirement and the total number of those credits may not exceed the number of transfer credits permitted.  The policy specifies: “Credit for prior learning must apply towards degree requirements (major, general education or electives).”
3. Does the policy prohibit “double dipping”? For example, can a student earn 12 credits for AP Calculus, plus 12 more if they take the Calculus CLEP?
   • If two exams are evaluated as the equivalent of the same course(s), credit may only be given for one exam. There should be room and a place in the degree program for the credits accepted. In the Technical Guidance section of the policy, see item #7 under section 4) GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR IMPLEMENTATION: #7. “Credit for prior learning must apply towards degree requirements…” (major, general education or electives).

QUESTIONS ABOUT SCORING

4. Are colleges required to accept the scores mandated by CUNY for exams included in the CPL policy, even if higher scores were previously required for those credits to transfer to specific courses?
   • Yes, colleges are required to accept the scores mandated by CUNY policy. A college cannot set a cut score that is above the mandated score by CUNY policy.
5. Can faculty add lines to AP tests to reflect different cutoff scores, with the understanding that the total number of credits must equal the minimum? (For example, AP Chinese Language and Culture Score 5:  ELC201, ELC105… AP Chinese Language and Culture Score 4:  ELC105, ELC104… AP Chinese Language and Culture Score 3: ELC104, ELC103…)
   • Yes, as long as colleges are awarding credit based on the cutoff scores specified in the policy.

QUESTIONS ABOUT CREDIT FOR LANGUAGE

6. Will students be able to take an exam for, and receive credit for, their native language?
   • Yes, students will be able to take an exam and receive credit for their native language. It is not equitable to treat students differently based on their native language.
7. Is there a uniform CUNY plan or policy on how to handle credits for languages that the college doesn’t offer?
   • It is recommended that colleges use subject area / language elective courses.
   • If the college has languages in World Cultures/Global Issues area of the Pathways Common Core Framework, a standardized exam could be applied to fulfill Pathways requirements.
   • The number of credits (and how credits are divided) can be determined by the college.
8. Under “the new language courses credit transfer”, are we required to increase the number of credits from the previous practice; for example should we transfer 16 credits in Chinese language for the AP exam where we previously only allowed 6?
   • Campuses should use the ACE credit recommendations as guidelines, not as minimum credit requirements. Campus liaisons should work with faculty teaching in the disciplines, with their testing offices, and with transfer credit evaluators to use their expert knowledge and best judgment when determining the number of credits granted for each exam.

QUESTIONS ABOUT APPLICATION OF CREDITS

9. What is the role of discipline councils in the determination of equivalencies and credit application?
   • Input from any discipline council is encouraged as a means for making CPL implementation more consistent and equitable across CUNY. However, while awaiting review and determination of course equivalencies by specific discipline councils, colleges should for now identify the appropriate Pathways bucket and designate a freshman-level or elective equivalency.
10. Are colleges required to accept all the provided subject areas? For example, must we accept credits in travel and tourism, if the college does not offer credits in that subject area?
    • Exams should be accepted if they can be applied as a degree requirement or used as free elective credit, which would be the case in this scenario.
11. If a college gives elective credit for a course that it does not offer, and the student cannot use the course because there is no elective credit in the program, will the student be able to apply the credit differently at the four-year college if it meets a defined course requirement there?
    • When reviewing transfer credits including CPL, senior colleges should review elective credits from CC and allocate them in the manner that is most advantageous to the student. For example, if a community college does not offer a financial accounting course, a student may be awarded elective credit for a qualifying score on a Financial Accounting CLEP exam. If the same student later transfers to a senior college, the elective credit should be reconsidered and reallocated toward a degree requirement if the receiving college has an appropriate course equivalency available. This is particularly important if the equivalent course would fulfill a specific degree requirement and not just a free elective at the senior college.
12. Many of these exams will not have an exact equivalent course at a given college. In these cases, elective credit is one option, but should colleges evaluate for Pathways designation in a specific area as well?
    • Exams can be coded with generic Pathways requirement designations (for example Creative Expression 999; with a line in the description) that can fulfill a Pathways designation without being linked to a specific course. When reviewing transfer credits including CPL, senior colleges should review elective credits from CC and allocate them in the manner that is most advantageous to the student.
13. Can an academic department still give the student a placement exam in order for them to be placed into the appropriate level of class?
    • If a student has taken an exam and received a qualifying score that fulfills a course that is deemed equivalent to a Pathways graduation requirement, the student should receive credit for that course equivalency and not be required to take additional, higher level courses. Students who wish to take a course which has a prerequisite for which the student has been awarded credit by any means should not be subjected to any additional assessment of their preparedness.

To:	CUNY Presidentsand Provosts
From:	José Luis Cruz, Executive Vice Chancellor & University Provost
Date:	September 4, 2019
Subject:	Implementation of the Amended Board of Trustees Policy 1.09 (Guidelines for Centers, Institutes, Consortia and Special Programs)

Context

During the full Board meeting on December 14, 2020, the CUNY Board of Trustees approved amended Policy 1.09 – Guidelines for Centers, Institutes, Consortia and Special Programs (see enclosed policy document). The new policy includes amendments that ensure that centers, institutes, and consortia ultimately support the core mission of CUNY colleges and the University.
The amended policy states that centers, institutes, and consortia must:

• Enrich and support the core mission of the University
• Aim to become fiscally self-sufficient through external fundraising;
• Develop funding plans that specify how the entity will aim to sustain its activities and operations;
• Create parameters that limit the duration and extent that it relies on tax-levy funding, when provided;
• Enforce term limits for directors (additional terms can be requested by a letter from the campus President explaining the rationale for the request)
• Make annual reports publicly available
• Be evaluated every five years

The amended policy also states that:

• The Office of Academic Affairs will review proposals for centers, institutes, and consortia and make recommendations to the Committee on Academic Policy, Programs, & Research (CAPPR) on the approval or disapproval of the proposed entity.

These policy amendments aim to improve the quality, reputation, and sustainability of Centers, Institutes, Consortia and Special Programs by designing a collaborative approval process, promoting fiscal health and accountability, and adopting an evidence-based approach to their assessment and evaluation.

Next Steps

Regarding new centers, institutes, and consortia – To ensure compliance with the newly amended policy, the Office of Academic Affairs will use the enclosed rubrics to assess new proposals for centers, institutes, and consortia before advancing them to the Board of Trustees Committee on Policy, Programs, and Research (CAPPR).

Regarding existing centers, institutes, and consortia – The City University of New York is implementing a recertification process that aims to ensure that all existing centers, institutes, and consortia are in compliance with the amended policy by Fall 2023. During the recertification process, existing centers, institutes, and consortia will be asked to:

• Justify the recertification of the center, institute, or consortium by:
  • Describing the local, regional, or national significance of the contributions that the entity is intended to make
  • Describing any relationships to existing centers and institutes at the University and within the City and State of New York
  • Providing assurances that the entity does not duplicate, substantially overlap, or subsume the mission of existing programs at CUNY
• Provide a strategic plan for the entity that includes:
  • A mission statement that supports the core mission of CUNY
  • A detailed description of the scope of activities
  • A sampling of recently prepared annual reports, and a commitment to making annual reports publicly available moving forward
  • A detailed assessment plan to evaluate the entity every five years
  • Acknowledgement that tax-levy funding, if provided, will be limited in duration and extent, and information about how the entity will aim to sustain its activities and operations through external fundraising
• Provide a staffing plan for the center, institute, or consortium that includes:
  • An organizational chart
  • Curriculum vitae of proposed staff members
  • A succession plan including specification and enforcement of term limits

Starting immediately, unless Colleges have independently initiated recertification processes that will enable them to assess the viability of existing entities based on the amended Policy 1.09 within the proposed timeline, College Presidents will work with their Chief Academic Officers to design and implement local processes that will enable them to:

1. Identify the entities that require recertification, providing this list to the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and University Provost, by December 31, 2021. We expect that all entities that fall within the definitions covered by the guidelines, regardless of whether they were established after the original 1995 Policy 1.09, will require recertification. The Office of Academic Affairs is available to work with individual colleges to generate a complete list of centers, institutes, and consortia that require recertification.
2. Collect relevant materials (see the list above) from said entities by December 31, 2022. Colleges can determine what level of support they would like to provide to existing entities as they produce/compile the requested materials.
3. Engage in a local consultation process during the review and assessment of the materials provided by existing centers, institutes, or consortia (colleges are welcome to adapt the enclosed rubrics in order to support these assessments). After making a preliminary determination about the viability, governance, and/or mandates of the centers, institutes, or consortia under consideration, presidents will communicate their intention to recommend recertification or decertification to said entities. Centers, institutes, or consortia slated for decertification will have 30 days to submit a formal request for reconsideration to the president, who will then make a final determination. More guidelines on these local assessment and appeals processes will be forthcoming.
4. Submit recertification recommendations (via an attestation form that will be forthcoming) to the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and University Provost by July 15, 2023. Supporting materials for centers, institutes, and consortia recommended for recertification should be uploaded into a central repository for recertified entities created by the Office of Academic Affairs. Supporting materials for centers, institutes, and consortia recommended for decertification should be uploaded into a separate repository for decertified entities created by the Office of Academic Affairs. More information about the process for organizing and uploading these materials will be forthcoming.

The Chancellor will review the recommendations submitted by college presidents, and all entities requiring recertification will be notified of their official status by the Office of Academic Affairs on or about August 31, 2023.

Centers, institutes, and consortia that have been recertified will continue operating beyond Fall 2023.

Entities that have not been recertified have a right to appeal the decision by submitting a formal request for reconsideration to the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor & University Provost. The Chancellor will review the supporting materials previously provided by the college president as part of the recommendation process and make a final decision. Information about how decertified centers, institutes, and consortia will wind down operations will be forthcoming.

Please note that the enclosed document listing Frequently Asked Questions is a living document. Periodic updates will be disseminated as we collectively navigate through this process.

POLICY GUIDELINES FOR CENTERS, INSTITUTES, CONSORTIA, AND SPECIAL INITIATIVES
AT THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

In The City University of New York (the “University”) — as in most institutions of higher education — the normal locus for instruction and research is the academic department. Additional instruction, including continuing education programs and experiential learning, can be delivered through centers, institutes, consortia, and special initiatives. These organizations play an important role in the University’s endeavors by meeting needs which fall outside the customary domains of academic departments. Since these organized research, instruction, and training initiatives do not operate under the established rules and regulations which govern departments, it is desirable and even necessary to set policy guidelines to provide for their orderly administration.

Centers, institutes, consortia, and special initiatives should supplement, not supplant, activities of academic and administrative departments. They may offer more opportunities for organized research for the benefit of faculty, students, and communities surrounding the colleges. Consequently, these entities are prohibited from duplicating functions of, or exercising routine prerogatives of, academic and administrative departments. In particular, they are not to be viewed as alternate routes to faculty appointments.

Specifically, centers, institutes, consortia, and special initiatives and the attendant personnel are explicitly debarred from: (1) offering regular courses, (2) conferring degrees, (3) appointing faculty members through their agency alone or without adequate faculty consultation, and (4) conferring tenure or providing certificates of continuous employment.

Organized research, training and instruction, and service units are expected to operate with substantial external support to advance the mission of the University beyond what is possible to accomplish through the basic institutional budget. While tax-levy support, direct or indirect, for centers, institutes, consortia and special initiatives is not prohibited, it should be viewed as an aid to developing external support, when available, and never as a guarantee. If available and provided, tax-levy support from the University is usually, but not always, limited in duration and extent.

Centers, institutes, consortia, and other special initiatives carry out their diverse missions in a multitude of ways. Funding comes from the federal, State, and City governments, and private foundations.

Recognizing that the terms “center” and “institute” are used by many inside and outside the University to denote a variety of entities, this policy distinguishes between the title by which an entity is known and its designation by the college and/or the University, as the case may be, pursuant to this policy. For the purposes of this policy, a center is a single-campus entity and institutes and consortia are multi-campus entities. A center is subject to the direct authority of the president of its host college. Institutes and consortia are subject to the direct authority of the Chancellor, although each consortium is administered by an advisory board. As part of the University, all centers, institutes and consortia are subject to the ultimate authority of the Board of Trustees.

A center, institute, consortium, or a special initiative of the University is an organizational entity other than an academic, continuing education, or administrative department, conducting research, instruction, training, service, or other activity which — by its nature, methods of operation, or sources of funding — requires recognition as an entity outside regular structures. The purposes of centers, institutes, consortia and special initiatives may be described as follows:

• Research: Centers, institutes, and consortia are vehicles for interdisciplinary research, thematic research that unites sub-disciplines within an academic discipline, or special projects of limited duration.
• Training and Instruction: Groups whose educations do not fall within the academic curriculum or continuing education programs of the University and are not applicable towards a degree can be brought together in campus-based centers or University-wide institutes that offer non-credit instruction that is more narrowly focused or of shorter duration than the customary curriculum.
• Service to the Surrounding Community: It is appropriate for the University or a campus to offer non- instructional services to the outside community, including government, based on its expertise in academic disciplines.

Regardless of its actual title or name, each such entity must be formally designated as one of the mutually exclusive types described in Section 1 of this policy and follow all approval, financing, and accountability requirements, for that designation. The Office of Academic Affairs will maintain a current list of all approved entities with their formal designation and will make this list publicly available via a central web-based repository.

1. Definitions

Centers

A center is an organized unit of a single college of the University whose mission is to sponsor, coordinate, and promote research, training, instruction, and/or service, in order to enrich and support the core mission of the college. Centers shall not duplicate or substantially compete with the mission of University-wide institutes, consortia, or special initiatives.

Institutes

An institute is an organized unit of the University staffed, supported, and governed by multiple colleges of the University, and/or the central office, under the leadership of a primary college and/or the central office, whose mission is (i) to sponsor, coordinate, and promote research, training, instruction, and/or service and (ii) to enhance by collaboration the University’s strength in specific areas, in order to enrich and support the core mission of the University. New institutes shall not duplicate, substantially overlap with, or subsume the mission of existing institutes, consortia, or special initiatives.

Consortia

A consortium is an organized unit of the University formed by several colleges, institutes and/or centers, whose mission is to coordinate the efforts of its individual components and in which no single component leads. New consortia shall not duplicate, substantially overlap, or subsume the mission of existing institutes, consortia, or special initiatives.

Special Initiatives

Occasionally, the University has a special opportunity or is specially requested to serve the City, State, or nation in projects which do not fall within any of the above categories. The University may then initiate an activity it hopes will grow into a center or institute or which may remain limited in duration and scope. Such projects are called University special initiatives, and — while their form and function cannot be fully anticipated in sufficient detail to provide specific regulations for their conduct — by recognizing the possibility of these endeavors in this policy the Board of Trustees of the University indicates, in general terms, its support of special initiatives and affirms the legitimacy of their role in University affairs.

2. Approval Processes

Centers

A proposal to create a new center at a college requires approval at the college and University levels. Each college shall follow any applicable local approval process for creation of new centers consistent with its established governance plan. The process should include a recommendation from the college governance body.
At the University level, the process will consist of the following elements:

a) The participating colleges shall provide to the Office of Academic Affairs a proposal that incorporates:

1. A strategic plan for the proposed center that includes:
   • A mission statement
   • A plan of operations
   • An assessment plan
   • A funding plan that specifies how the center will sustain its activities and operations
2. A justification for the creation of the center — including local, regional, and national significance of the contributions the center is intended to make — as well as its relationship, if any, to existing centers and institutes at the University and within the City and State of New York
3. Assurance that the center does not duplicate, substantially overlap, or subsume the mission of existing centers, institutes, consortia, or special initiatives except when the explicit purpose of establishing the center is to replace existing structures
4. A staffing plan for the center, with which the college president formally concurs, that includes an organizational chart, curriculum vitae of proposed staff members, and letters of endorsement from individuals and organizations outside the University. Directors will be appointed for five-year terms, except that directors who are subject to annual reappointments in their underlying CUNY job title and are not reappointed in that title will no longer serve as directors upon their separation from employment. Unless directly specified by college governance rules, directors of centers will serve a maximum of two five-year terms. Additional five-year terms may be requested by a letter from the college president explaining the rationale for the request. All directors should be evaluated every three years with respect to their service as director, but shall also be subject to the applicable evaluation provisions of the PSC/CUNY collective bargaining agreement.

b) The Office of Academic Affairs will review the proposal and make recommendations to the Committee on Academic Policy, Programs, & Research (CAPPR) on the approval or disapproval of the proposed center

Institutes

A proposal to create a new institute at the University requires approvals at the college and University levels. Participating colleges will determine the process by which individual college approval is conferred, but the process should include approval of the college’s governance bodies and substantial consultation with faculty.

At the University level, the process will consist of the following elements:

a) The participating colleges shall provide to the Office of Academic Affairs a proposal that incorporates:

1. A strategic plan for the proposed institute that includes:
   • Designation of a primary college and the basis for participation by other campuses, as well as the structure of any advisory board and/or steering committee. (Some institutes may be dual reporting entities, reporting both to the college president where the institute is located and to the Chancellor.)
   • A mission statement
   • A plan of operations
   • An assessment plan
   • A funding plan for the institute that specifies how the institute will sustain its activities and operations
2. Letters of support from all participating presidents
3. A justification for the creation of the institute — including local, regional, and national significance of the contributions the institute is intended to make — as well as its relationship, if any, to existing centers and institutes at the University and within the City and State of New York
4. Assurance that the institute does not duplicate, substantially overlap, or subsume the mission of existing centers, institutes, consortia, or special initiatives except when the explicit purpose of establishing the institute is to replace existing structures
5. A staffing plan, for the institute, with which the president of the primary college formally concurs, that includes an organizational chart, curriculum vitae of proposed staff members, and letters of endorsement from individuals and organizations outside the University. Directors will be appointed for terms of five years, except that directors who are subject to annual reappointments in their underlying CUNY job title and are not reappointed in that title will no longer serve as directors upon their separation from employment. Unless directly specified by college governance rules, directors of institutes will serve a maximum of two five-year terms. Additional five-year terms may be requested by a letter from the college president explaining the rationale for the request. All directors should be evaluated every three years with respect to their service as director, but shall also be subject to the applicable evaluation provisions of the PSC/CUNY collective bargaining agreement.

b) The Office of Academic Affairs will review the proposal and make recommendations to the Committee on Academic Policy, Programs, & Research (CAPPR) on the approval or disapproval of the proposed institute

Consortia

A proposal to establish a new consortium at the University will require approvals at the University level. The process will consist of the following elements:

a) The participating colleges shall provide to the Office of Academic Affairs a proposal incorporating:

1. A strategic plan for the proposed consortium that includes:
   • A description of the management structure, including the membership of the advisory board
   • A mission statement
   • A plan of operations
   • An assessment plan
   • A funding plan for the consortium that specified how the consortium will sustain its activities and operations
2. Letters of support from the presidents of all participating colleges
3. A justification for the establishment of the consortium — including local, regional, and national significance of the contributions the consortium is intended to make — as well as its relationship to existing institutes and centers at the University and within the City and State of New York
4. Assurance that the proposed consortium does not duplicate, substantially overlap, or subsume the mission of an existing institute, consortium, or special initiative
5. A staffing plan for the consortium, with which the presidents of the participating colleges formally concur, that includes an organizational chart, curriculum vitae of proposed staff members, and letters of endorsement from individuals and organizations outside the University. Directors will be appointed for terms of five years, except that directors who are subject to annual reappointments in their underlying CUNY job title and are not reappointed in that title will no longer serve as directors upon their separation from employment. Unless directly specified by college governance rules, directors of consortia will serve a maximum of two five-year terms. Additional five-year terms may be requested by a letter from the college presidents explaining the rationale for the request. All directors should be evaluated every three years with respect to their service as director, but shall also be subject to the applicable evaluation provisions of the PSC/CUNY collective bargaining agreement.

b) The Office of Academic Affairs will review the proposal and make recommendations to the Committee on Academic Policy, Programs, & Research (CAPPR) on the approval or disapproval of the proposed consortium.

Special Initiatives

Since the exact form of special initiatives cannot be anticipated, it shall be left to the Chancellor to bring them to the attention of the Board of Trustees in a manner appropriate to their structure, function, and financial requirements. However, since the structure of special initiatives is not specified in advance, it is important that special care be taken to ensure that special initiatives adhere strictly to the limitations made explicit in this policy.

3. Financial and Other Matters

3.1 Financing

Centers

Centers, as college-based entities, will generally be funded through a combination of external sponsored program funds and college-based support. It is University policy that direct or indirect tax-levy support for centers should be limited in extent and duration so that it does not constitute a burden on the instructional budget of colleges. While occasional central tax-levy support for college-based centers is allowed, as a rule, colleges should expect to support centers within their own budgets, from sponsored programs, and with external fundraising where appropriate. Centers shall also hire staff through the college’s established hiring processes for faculty and staff and enforce term limits (a maximum of two five-year terms) for directors.
Institutes and Consortia
Given the anticipated scale of their operations and the magnitude of institutional commitments they carry, institutes and consortia are appropriate loci for major investments of tax-levy monies. The University expects that institutions and consortia will aim to become fiscally self-sufficient through external fundraising and that tax-levy support, when provided, will be limited in duration and extent and over time matched by substantial amounts of non-tax-levy monies. Proposals for the creation of new institutes or consortia shall include in their documentation a fiscal plan indicating the need for matching funds and a timetable for attaining all funding goals.

3.2 University Policies

As part of the University, all centers, institutes and consortia and their staff are subject to the policies and procedures of the University, and the colleges as applicable, including without limitation the University’s policies on naming, procurement, property management, use of computer resources, sexual misconduct, workplace violence, and contract signing authority.

3.3 Fundraising

Centers, institutes and consortia are expected and encouraged to seek sources of non-tax-levy funds. Consistent with the University’s Foundation Guidelines, these entities should work with their affiliated college foundations when seeking donations and other general program support from individuals and entities, rather than setting up a separate fundraising entity.

3.4 Sponsored Programs and Grants

As with academic departments and other parts of the University, the Research Foundation of The City University of New York shall administer research grants and sponsored project funding for centers, institutes and consortia.

4 Accountability

4.1 Centers, Institutes and Consortia

At the end of each fiscal year, the colleges (for centers and institutes), and advisory boards (for consortia), shall make publicly available via the colleges’ websites and a central online repository created by the Office of Academic Affairs, for informational purposes, a report from each center, institute, and consortium. The report shall contain:

1. The mission of the center, institute, or consortium
2. The college president’s attestation of the continuing value of the center or institute, or the attestation of the consortium’s advisory board of the continuing value of the consortium, and the role of the center, institute, or consortium in enriching and supporting the core mission of the college or the University
3. The director’s statement of the center’s, institute’s or consortium’s current progress toward meeting the goals stated in the strategic plan
4. The center’s, institute’s or consortium’s staffing plan, with which the participating college presidents formally concur, and a report regarding the status of directors, given their term limits
5. A description of current and projected activities
6. A current and projected budget including individual project budgets, a tax-levy budget showing expenditures of these funds, a chart indicating the sources of staff and faculty salaries, and a plan that specifies how the center, institute, or consortium will aim to sustain its activities and operations

If, on the basis of the published report, questions arise concerning the viability, governance, or mandate of a specific center, institute, or consortium, the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will seek clarification from the president of the appropriate college (for centers or institutes) or the advisory board (for consortia).

4.2 Special Initiatives

The Chancellor shall from time to time as deemed appropriate or at the request of the Board of Trustees report to the Board on the status and progress of special initiatives.

5. Evaluation

Centers, institutes and consortia shall be evaluated every five years. The University will assess the success of the center, institute or consortium in meeting its stated goals, including the effectiveness of the entity, if appropriate, as a University-wide entity. The college presidents, regarding centers and institutes at their colleges, and the advisory boards of consortia, shall coordinate the evaluation process per the entity’s existing assessment plan. The evaluation shall include a self-evaluation report and a report by at least two outside evaluators along with a summary of financial support and investments and progress toward fiscal self-sufficiency, which shall be given substantial weight in the evaluation. Continuation of University-level support of an institute or consortium will be dependent on successful achievement and reasonable progress toward an appropriate level of non-tax-levy support. Evaluation reports shall be submitted to the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, which shall prepare a summary of the evaluations and submit it to the Chancellor for review and appropriate action.

[Board of Trustees Meeting – December 14, 2020]

QUALIFYING ENTITIES & DEFINITIONS

How do colleges determine which centers, institutes, and consortia need to be formally recertified by Fall 2023?

All entities that fall within the definitions covered by the guidelines, regardless of whether they were established after the original 1995 Policy 1.09 was in effect, should complete the recertification process unless they are exempted for some particular reason.
Per the amended policy: “Recognizing that the terms ‘center’ and ‘institute’ are used by many inside and outside the University to denote a variety of entities, this policy distinguishes between the title by which an entity is known and its designation by the college and/or the University, as the case may be, pursuant to this policy. For the purposes of this policy, a center is a single-campus entity and institutes and consortia are multi-campus entities. A center is subject to the direct authority of the president of its host college. Institutes and consortia are subject to the direct authority of the Chancellor, although each consortium is administered by an advisory board. As part of the University, all centers, institutes and consortia are subject to the ultimate authority of the Board of Trustees.

A center, institute, consortium, or a special initiative of the University is an organizational entity other than an academic, continuing education, or administrative department, conducting research, instruction, training, service, or other activity which — by its nature, methods of operation, or sources of funding — requires recognition as an entity outside regular structures. The purposes of centers, institutes, consortia and special initiatives may be described as follows:

Research: Centers, institutes, and consortia are vehicles for interdisciplinary research, thematic research that unites sub-disciplines within an academic discipline, or special projects of limited duration.

Training and Instruction: Groups whose educations do not fall within the academic curriculum or continuing education programs of the University and are not applicable towards a degree can be brought together in campus-based centers or University-wide institutes that offer non-credit instruction that is more narrowly focused or of shorter duration than the customary curriculum.

Service to the Surrounding Community: It is appropriate for the University or a campus to offer non- instructional services to the outside community, including government, based on its expertise in academic disciplines.”
Entities that are called “centers” within colleges and that provide teaching & learning support, ESL instruction, etc., are not required to go through this recertification process.

How does the policy officially define a center?

Per the amended policy: “A center is an organized unit of a single college of the University whose mission is to sponsor, coordinate, and promote research, training, instruction, and/or service, in order to enrich and support the core mission of the college. Centers shall not duplicate or substantially compete with the mission of University-wide institutes, consortia, or special initiatives.”

How does the policy officially define an institute?

Per the amended policy: “An institute is an organized unit of the University staffed, supported, and governed by multiple colleges of the University, and/or the central office, under the leadership of a primary college and/or the central office, whose mission is (i) to sponsor, coordinate, and promote research, training, instruction, and/or service and (ii) to enhance by collaboration the University’s strength in specific areas, in order to enrich and support the core mission of the University. New institutes shall not duplicate, substantially overlap with, or subsume the mission of existing institutes, consortia, or special initiatives.”

How does the policy officially define a consortium?

Per the amended policy: “A consortium is an organized unit of the University formed by several colleges, institutes and/or centers, whose mission is to coordinate the efforts of its individual components and in which no single component leads. New consortia shall not duplicate, substantially overlap, or subsume the mission of existing institutes, consortia, or special initiatives.” A consortium is a collaborative initiative involving multiple University units and/or intra-University structures, and, unlike an institute, without a single lead school.

What are the implications of this amended policy for entities established before 1995, when the original Policy 1.09 was established? What if specific entities are uncertain about their exact founding date, whether they were formally approved by the Board, and whether they should be recertified?

All entities that fall within the definitions covered by the guidelines, regardless of whether they were established after the original 1995 Policy 1.09 was in effect or formally approved by the Board at all, should complete the recertification process unless they are exempted for some particular reason. The Office of Academic Affairs is available to work with individual colleges to generate a complete list of centers, institutes, and consortia that require recertification.

GENERAL RECERTIFICATION PROCESS QUESTIONS

Should colleges that have already initiated recertification processes for centers, institutes, or consortia pause activities or begin again per the recertification steps outlined in the memo?

No. Colleges that have independently initiated recertification processes that will enable them to assess the viability of existing entities based on the amended Policy 1.09 within the proposed timeline should proceed.

What documents are colleges expected to review and ultimately submit via the central repository in order to justify their recertification or decertification recommendations?

College leaders may use their discretion when making this determination. However, the spirit of the amended policy is such that every effort should be made during this process to ensure that centers, institutes, and consortia submit documentation that adequately:

• Justifies the recertification of the center, institute, or consortium by:

• • Describing the local, regional, or national significance of the contributions that the entity is intended to make
  • Describing any relationships to existing centers and institutes at the University and within the City and State of New York
  • Providing assurances that the entity does not duplicate, substantially overlap, or subsume the mission of existing programs at CUNY

• Provides a strategic plan for the entity that includes:
  • A mission statement that supports the core mission of CUNY
  • A detailed description of the scope of activities
  • A sampling of recently prepared annual reports, and a commitment to making annual reports publicly available moving forward
  • A detailed assessment plan to evaluate the entity every five years
  • Acknowledgement that tax-levy funding, if provided, will be limited in duration and extent, and information about how the entity will aim to sustain its activities and operations through external fundraising
• Provides a staffing plan for the center, institute, or consortium that includes:
  • An organizational chart
  • Curriculum vitae of proposed staff members
  • A succession plan including specification and enforcement of term limits

Will entities whose names do not comply with the definitions in the amended policy guidelines need to change their names upon recertification? In other words, will an “institute” that should in fact be called a “center” per the definition in the amended policy be expected to rename itself?

College leaders may use their discretion when making this determination for entities whose names do not comply with the definitions in the amended policy guidelines – especially in those cases where rebranding the entity would detract from the work. However, the spirit of the amended policy is such that every effort should be made during this process to ensure that centers, institutes, and consortia recommended for recertification are ultimately in compliance with said guidelines.

The amended policy states that entities should not duplicate, substantially overlap, or subsume the mission of existing centers, institutes, or consortia. How should college leaders approach the enforcement of this guideline for centers that have similar missions to other centers across CUNY?

College leaders may use their discretion when making this determination, and will likely expect each center seeking recertification to identify the uniquely distinct role it plays in advancing its mission within the context of the entire University (e.g., by addressing issues that may directly affect their local community).

What is the role of the founding documents that exist for entities seeking recertification?

If they are seeking recertification, centers, institutes, and consortia are expected to revisit their founding documents and revise them in order to achieve compliance with the amended policy guidelines.

What is the sunset process for entities that are recommended for decertification?

Information about how decertified centers, institutes, and consortia will wind down operations will be forthcoming.

FINANCING

What does it mean for a center, institute, or consortia to adequately “sustain its activities and operations”? Does this imply that both operational and personnel expenses should be covered by the entity? Do in-kind expenses from the college, such as release time for faculty directors, count as tax-levy support?

Self-sufficiency implies that all expenses related to the entity, both operational and personnel, are in fact not dependent on tax-levy support. College leaders may use their discretion when determining to what degree entities are able to rely upon tax-level funding once recommended for recertification. However, the spirit of the amended policy is such that every effort should be made during this process to ensure that centers, institutes, and consortia recommended for recertification are ultimately well-positioned to achieve fiscal self-sufficiency through external fundraising and so there is an expectation that the corresponding entity have a plan to this end.

Personnel who are currently on the tax-levy payroll can remain there, so long as those costs are reimbursed by the non-tax levy entity (through a transaction called “refund of appropriation”). Regarding fringe benefits, since fringes for tax-levy personnel are covered by the University, the same applies here; if entities’ employees are supported by non-tax levy funds, then the entities need to also cover the fringes costs. College leaders may use their discretion to provide in-kind support to the centers, institutes, or consortia for such things as IT, facilities, and business office transactions.

How should college leaders approach the enforcement of amended policy guidelines regarding financing – specifically, the limited use of direct or indirect tax-levy support – for entities that have relied on tax-levy funding for many years?

College leaders may use their discretion when making this determination for entities that have relied upon non-earmarked college tax-levy funding in the past. However, the spirit of the amended policy is such that every effort should be made during this process to ensure that centers, institutes, and consortia recommended for recertification are ultimately well-positioned to achieve fiscal self-sufficiency through external fundraising and so there is an expectation that the corresponding entity have a plan to this end. If non-tax levy resources do not yet exist for particular centers, institutes, and consortia that have historically been mainly supported through tax-levy, then the college and entity are strongly encouraged to develop a multi-year plan to transition funding to non-tax levy resources.

Are college leaders permitted to use institutional resources to support entities that may not attract external investment because they are pursuing important areas of research and scholarship?

College leaders may use their discretion when determining to what degree entities are able to rely upon tax-level funding once recommended for recertification. However, the spirit of the amended policy is such that every effort should be made during this process to ensure that centers, institutes, and consortia recommended for recertification are ultimately well-positioned to achieve fiscal self-sufficiency through external fundraising and so there is an expectation that the corresponding entity have a plan to this end.

What role should the Research Foundation play for centers, institutes, and consortia?

As with academic departments and other parts of the University, the Research Foundation of The City University of New York shall administer research grants and sponsored project funding for centers, institutes and consortia.

STAFFING PLANS & TERM LIMITS

What is required for a president to exempt a director of a center, institute, or consortia of the term limits specified in the policy?

Unless directly specified by college governance rules, directors of centers, institutes, or consortia will serve a maximum of two five-year terms. Additional five-year terms may be requested by a letter from the college presidents explaining the rationale for the request.

Must the term limits for directors be calculated retroactively in the case of centers, institutes, or consortia that are seeking recertification?

Yes, with the understanding that a mechanism exists for presidents to request a waiver provided adequate justification. Insofar as term limits are being applied retroactively, the colleges will need to find appropriate positions for any center director who has tenure or a CCAS and is not being retained as director.

Do term limits apply to both faculty and staff directors?

Yes. Directors in both faculty and HEO titles will be limited to two five-year terms; however, directors who do not have tenure or a CCAS are subject to annual reappointments in their faculty or HEO payroll title and if they are not reappointed in such title, their appointment as directors will cease upon their separation from service. Unless directly specified by college governance rules, directors will serve a maximum of two five-year terms. Additional five-year terms may be requested by a letter from the college presidents explaining the rationale for the request. All directors should be evaluated at least every three years with respect to their service as director; directors who do not have tenure or a CCAS are subject to the applicable annual evaluation provisions of the PSC-CUNY collective bargaining agreement.

Should the staffing plan for a center, institute, or consortium include faculty outside of the entity’s formal team whose grants are integrated into the funding portfolio?

College leaders may use their discretion when making this determination. However, the spirit of the amended policy is such that every effort should be made during this process to ensure that centers, institutes, and consortia recommended for recertification have presented a comprehensive and cohesive picture of their staffing plan and the entity’s funding and activities portfolio.

REPORTING & EVALUATION

What are the new reporting and evaluation requirements for centers, institutes, and consortia?

Centers, institutes, and consortia are expected to produce both annual reports and five-year evaluations.

ANNUAL REPORTS: At the end of each fiscal year, the colleges (for centers and institutes), and advisory boards (for consortia), shall make publicly available via the colleges’ websites and a central online repository created by the Office of Academic Affairs, for informational purposes, a report from each center, institute, and consortium.

5-YEAR EVALUATIONS: Centers, institutes and consortia shall be evaluated every five years. The college presidents, regarding centers and institutes at their colleges, and the advisory boards of consortia, shall coordinate the evaluation process per the entity’s existing assessment plan.

What should specifically be included in the annual reports of centers, institutes, or consortia, and how should college leaders approach organizing the review schedule?

College leaders may use their discretion regarding the required components of annual reports as well as the scheduling of their development and submission. The expectation is that annual reports will include content that addresses the following:

• The mission of the center, institute, or consortium
• The college president’s attestation of the continuing value of the center or institute, or the attestation of the consortium’s advisory board of the continuing value of the consortium, and the role of the center, institute, or consortium in enriching and
  supporting the core mission of the college or the University • The director’s statement of the center’s, institute’s or consortium’s current progress toward meeting the goals stated in the strategic plan
• The center’s, institute’s or consortium’s staffing plan, with which the participating college presidents formally concur, and a report regarding the status of directors, given their term limits
• A description of current and projected activities
• A current and projected budget including individual project budgets, a tax-levy budget showing expenditures of these funds, a chart indicating the sources of staff and faculty salaries, and a plan that specifies how the center, institute, or consortium will aim to sustain its activities and operations

What should specifically be included in 5-year evaluations for centers, institutes, or consortia?

The college presidents, regarding centers and institutes at their colleges, and the advisory boards of consortia, shall coordinate the evaluation process per the entity’s existing assessment plan. The evaluation shall include a self-evaluation report and a report by at least two outside evaluators along with a summary of financial support and investments and progress toward fiscal self-sufficiency, which shall be given substantial weight in the evaluation. College leaders have the discretion to select an appropriate combination of evaluators for each evaluation: whether internal and/or external, local and/or non-local.

REGARDING INSTITUTES & CONSORTIA IN PARTICULAR

Must all institutes have an advisory board to be recertified?

Per the amended policy, an institute’s strategic plan must include the structure of any advisory board and/or steering committee.

Does the formal recertification or decertification recommendation for a CUNY-wide institute get submitted by the primary college or all partner colleges?

The primary college should take the lead on organizing the recertification process and formally submitting the recertification or decertification recommendation. The consultation process during which institute materials are reviewed and assessed should involve the partner colleges.

How is a consortium different from an institute?

A consortium is a collaborative initiative involving multiple University units and/or intra-University structures, and, unlike an institute, without a single lead school.

MISCELLANEOUS

What are the points of engagement between centers, institutes, and consortia and the CUNY Board of Trustees, per the amended policy?

As part of the University, all centers, institutes and consortia are subject to the ultimate authority of the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees Committee on Academic Policy, Programs, and Research (CAPPR) is responsible for the initial approval of the creation of new centers, institutes, and consortia. The Chancellor or Executive Vice Chancellor will provide the Board of Trustees with regular updates regarding the recertification of existing entities, and the results of their formal 5-year evaluations. Members of the Board of Trustees will also be able to access the annual reports of all entities that, per the amended policy, will be made publicly available by the colleges and the Office of Academic Affairs.