Jon Driver wants to make one thing crystal clear about SFU’s bid to receive institutional accreditation from the U.S.-based Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities:

“There’s a common misconception that working with an ac-creditation commission in the United States is going to impose American requirements on this university—and that’s not the case,” says SFU’s VP-Academic, who is sponsoring the initiative.

“The assessment process is designed to see, fi rstly, how well we are meeting the university’s own established mission and goals.

“And secondly, it’s designed to ensure that we have processes in place to meet a range of standards that are widely accepted as appropriate to universities. This, for example, would include a governance system in which there is appropriate participation by different groups on campus. It would include academic freedom. It would include the assessment of teaching activity, and so on.

“We’re going to be measuring ourselves against a set of best practices as part of a process for evaluating the overall quality of the university. But we decide on the core purposes and goals of our university, and we will use the accreditation process to see how well we are performing.”

Driver notes that the university went through a consultation process more than ten years ago that resulted in a statement of values and commitments.

“More recently,” he adds, “we’ve also been through two very important planning processes, one for the academic plan and another for the research plan, which have resulted in some fairly clear statements about where we’re headed.

“In addition, the board of governors requires the president, on an annual basis, to set out his agenda for the university.

“So we’ve been able to develop a planning framework from the university’s overall mission, values and commitments, the presi-dent’s agenda and the two major pieces of recent planning.”

Being accredited will improve processes and simplify relation-ships with U.S. bodies, says Driver. Accreditation may also attract American students, as well as other international students seek-ing a North American education.

“A benefi t to our students and alumni would be the recogni-tion of SFU qualifi cations as being equivalent to U.S. accredited institutions should they seek employment in the U.S.”

Driver says most SFU community members won’t be directly affected by accreditation because the assessment process measures the entire institution rather than individual faculties, programs or departments.

But he says one area where many people will see a fairly direct impact is in the standards the NWCCU includes for measuring the outcomes of our academic programs, “which SFU doesn’t do consistently,” says Driver.

“It’s possible we’ll see greater attention being paid to what each program expects of its students once they’ve completed their program, such as demonstrated understanding of their discipline’s key concepts and methods.

“Or we could be looking for evidence of more skills-based outcomes, such as a student’s capacity for critical thinking and writing, or solving certain kinds of problems.”

Vp-aCademiC meSSage

accreditation will have world thinking of sFU

4 reasoNs For accreDITaTIoN y To receive an independent assessment of the institution as a

whole, not just individual programs, disciplines or departments. y To make it easier to compare and share best practices with

other institutions worldwide. y To generate greater international recognition and recruitment. y To simplify relations with U.S. counterparts in matters such as

scholarships, grants and athletics.

3 accreDITaTIoN proJecT oBJecTIVes y Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of SFU in relation to the

fi ve NWCCU Standards. y Develop a self-study report for submission to NWCCU. y Coordinate the NWCCU evaluation site visit.

4 core Themes* (esseNTIaL eLemeNTs oF sFU’s pUrpose/mIssIoN) y Teaching and Learning (Theme lead: Sarah Dench). y Research (Wade Parkhouse). y Student Experience and Success (Tim Rahilly). y Community and Citizenship (Joanne Curry).

*Mapped to SFU’s planning framework and 3-yr academic plan

5 NWccU sTaNDarDs coVereD IN sFU’s seLF-sTUDY reporT y Mission, core themes and expectations (SFU’s vision). y Resources and capacity (SFU’s means and ability to achieve its

vision). y Institutional planning (the university’s planning procedures). y Core theme planning, assessment and improvement (how SFU

measures success). y Mission fulfi llment, adaptation and sustainability (how the

university responds to change).

5 prImarY core-Theme Team TasKs y Defi ne your core theme (i.e., clarify what SFU means when it

refers to your core theme). y Make an assessment of how well SFU is achieving the theme’s

goals and objectives using the indicators identifi ed in the academic plan, the strategic research plan and the university planning framework as well as any other qualitative or quantitative measures.

y Provide a rationale for why particular measures (quantitative or qualitative) are appropriate.

y Explain the reasons for arriving at your assessment. y Using the assessment reach a conclusion about whether and

to what degree SFU is fulfi lling its mission as it pertains to your Core Theme.

3 secoNDarY core-Theme Team TasKs y Suggest improvements. y Explain how SFU could improve its performance for this core

theme. (Comment on the appropriateness and value of the goals and objectives, the effectiveness and effi ciency of the strategies employed, and the validity and reliability of the indicators identifi ed in the current planning documents. Suggest alternatives where necessary.)

y Describe what you learned from carrying out this initial process and how those lessons can be incorporated in future planning and assessment processes.

accreDITaTIoN BY The NUmBers

ViewPointAcademic thursday november 4, 2010newsLetter of the viCe President, aCademiC, simon fraser university

Welcome to the fi rst issue of ViewPointAcademic, a newsletter produced by the offi ce of the Vice President Academic (VPA) to keep members of the Simon Fraser University community abreast of current and future VPA initiatives.

This issue focuses on two major VPA projects—the 2010-13 academic plan and the accreditation project. Both will have a signifi cant impact on the university and its stakeholders in the years ahead.

SFU is in the midst of applying for institutional accreditation with the U.S.-based Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU), a certifi cation process for which there is no equivalent in Canada.

The process is focused on SFU’s mission fulfi llment, with an emphasis on how all its organizational units contribute collectively to the core themes of the university’s mission, rather than looking at individual units separately. The fi rst stage of the process will result in a fi ve-chapter self-study being submitted to the NWCCU in April 2011.

An evaluation team will visit SFU in fall 2011 to assess how the university applies its resources and capacities toward mission ful-fi llment, as indicated in the self-study document. While here, the

team will meet with senior administrators and host open forums for faculty, staff, students and other community members at all three campuses in Burnaby, Vancouver and Surrey.

To help evaluate whether post-secondary institutions are achiev-ing their mission, the NWCCU requires them to select several core themes representing different components of their mission. SFU has identifi ed four core themes that closely align with themes in the academic plan: Teaching and Learning, Research, Student Experience and Success, and Community and Citizenship.

To facilitate the university-wide accreditation process, and to help the 75-per-cent of university units that fall within his portfolio implement the academic plan, VPA Jon Driver struck fi ve teams last summer –one for each self-study theme plus a fi fth, Financial Sustainability and Institutional Strength team. The fi fth team’s work will be interwoven into the other four teams’ work on both the accreditation project and the academic plan.

Among other things in this issue, ViewPointAcademic introduces you to the fi ve theme teams, comprising some of the university’s brightest and most experienced academics and administrators, as they begin their labours in earnest.

pLaNNING The FUTUre, assessING The preseNT

GRE

G EH

LERS

SFN-SustainabilityInsert.indd 1 10-11-03 2:33 PM

2

Team lead Joanne Curry is so enthused about her Community and Citizenship theme team’s work on the accreditation project and the 2010-13 academic plan, she could write a book on it.

In fact, the Surrey campus executive director, who has just begun a doctorate in business administration, will probably do exactly that a few years from now when she writes her thesis.

“I would have been interested in being a member of this committee just because of my practical experience and role at SFU Sur-rey,” says Curry.

“But I’m so passionate about the topic, I want to do my thesis in this area as well.”

Curry’s team members include environ-ment faculty dean John Pierce, continuing studies dean Helen Wussow, geographer Sean Markey, an assistant professor with Surrey’s Explorations in Arts and Social Sciences program, and associate education professor David Zandvliet.

“We’re fortunate to have this expertise around the table,” says Curry. “My team-mates are all very dedicated to community engagement and citizenship so this particular theme is really important to them.”

Like the other theme teams, Curry’s group is currently more focused on carrying out their core-theme assessment for the ac-creditation self-study due next spring. But she says their accreditation and academic planning tasks are closely integrated.

The group is assessing the university’s ef-forts to link all three campuses more closely to their communities by making its learn-ing opportunities, community service and research results more accessible.

Those efforts could include closer ties with Aboriginal and immigrant communities, more strategically focused non-credit programs,

Supp

ortin

g pl

anS

SFu’

S miS

Sion

Core

The

mes Co

mmun

ity

and

Ci

tizen

Ship

Stud

ent e

xper

ienCe

an

d Su

CCeS

Sre

Sear

Chte

aChi

ng a

nd le

arni

ngFin

anCi

al

SuSt

aina

bilit

y an

d in

Stitu

tiona

l Str

engt

h

aCCreditation

Und

erly

ing

Them

e

Supplementsimon fraser university news y ViewPointAcAdemic y thursday november 4, 2010

Research theme-team leader Wade Parkhouse is unequivocal about his group’s approach to both the academic plan and the accreditation self-study.

“We have two objectives,” says the gradu-ate studies dean, whose teammates include associate VP-research Norbert Haunerland, sociology/anthropology and gerontology professor, Barbara Mitchell, and entomol-ogy associate professor and animal care committee chair, Carl Lowenberger.

“One is to assess the university’s research enterprise and our successes, goals and aspirations within the mandate of the stra-tegic research plan. The other is to look at

the role of graduate students in the research enterprise and also our efforts in promoting research in our undergraduate curriculum.”

The primary research goal of the academic plan is to support SFU’s 2010-2015 strategic research plan “which is why our academic plan themes are taken directly from it,” says Parkhouse.

His team’s immediate priority for the accreditation process is to identify the over-arching research-related goals and outcomes SFU wants to achieve and then determine whether or not the university is meeting them.

To do that, the group will sort through a vast array of indicators that have already

been collected, extracting much of the infor-mation from the academic plan, the strategic research plan and the university planning framework.

From there, the team will select the indicators that are most appropriate for the accreditation document. “Not necessarily the ones that make us look good, but the ones that give us a broader picture of where we’re going and will help us decide our future directions,” says Parkhouse.

At the end of the process, Parkhouse says he would like to see a realistic assessment of where the university is and where it wants to be down the road in terms of “embed-

The Student Experience and Success theme team is the only team that includes student representatives—which is both an opportunity and a challenge, says team lead Tim Rahilly, associate VP-students and international.

“One of the great things about it,” says Rahilly, “is the students will keep us jaded administrators hon-est. Their experience of the university is very different than ours. So making sure their voices are heard is an essential part of my role in chairing our group.”

On the other hand, he says, “the students are much more interested in the broader conversation represented in the academic plan than they are about accreditation.”

“So we’ve selected a subgroup to work on accredi-

A work in progress: That’s how team leader Sarah Dench, SFU’s director of university curriculum and institutional liaison, describes her Teaching and Learning theme team’s approach so far to implementing the academic plan and shepherding the accreditation process.

Dench’s team includes graduate studies as-sociate dean and chemistry professor, George Agnes; arts and social sciences associate dean and English professor, Paul Budra; registrar Kate Ross, who’s also on the Student Experience and Success team; and arts and social sciences dean and history professor, John Craig.

“We were given a draft of the core theme document with some tentative objectives and indicators and the first thing we did was revise it

The academic plan’s fifth theme, Financial Sus-tainability and Institutional Strength, is the only one that isn’t also an accreditation theme.

But the university’s financial health is critical to both initiatives, says the theme’s team leader, associate VP-academic Bill Krane.

“Our work cuts across all of the other teams and the work they’re doing,” says Krane, whose team-mates include institutional research and planning director, Jacy Lee, and financial and budget administration director, Anita Stepan.

“Our job is to assess the university’s financial viability and suggest changes to academic opera-tions,” adds Lee.

“It provides the underpinnings for a lot of the

(L To R) Sarah Dench, John Craig, Kate Ross and Paul Budra. (Missing: George Agnes.)

(L to R) Nancy Johnston, Tim Rahilly and Kate Ross. (Missing: Bill Radford, William Lindsay, Kris Magnusson, Scott Timcke and Paige Mackenzie.)

(L to R) Bill Krane, Jacy Lee and Anita Stepan.

SFN-SustainabilityInsert.indd 2 10-11-03 2:33 PM

Supplement simon fraser university news y ViewPointAcAdemic y thursday november 4, 2010

local and global community work and learning opportunities for students and closer links with alumni.

“We know what our goals and objectives are,” says Curry. “Our biggest challenge is figuring out how to accurately assess our performance in achieving them.”

But she adds, “What’s important about the accreditation process is that it helps to ensure you have the planning and measurement processes in place to answer questions like, what are you trying to do? How are you trying to do it? And how will you know if you’ve achieved it?

“This process gives us a great opportunity to better articu-late SFU’s goals and objectives and to assess our methods for measuring outcomes in all our core theme areas.”

reCo

mmen

datio

nre

Comm

enda

tion

reCo

mmen

datio

nre

Comm

enda

tion

reCo

mmen

datio

n

aSSe

SSme

ntaS

SeSS

ment

aSSe

SSme

ntaS

SeSS

ment

Overall Assessment of Mission Fulfillment

Recommendations & Implementation Support Them

e Te

am p

roce

ss

into something we could stand behind and really work well from.”

Like the others, Dench’s team was already helping faculties implement the academic plan when they were handed the accreditation self-study project.

But she says the two tasks have been orga-nized to complement each other so when the self-study is complete, “we will have a platform from which we can then continue the work prescribed in the academic plan.”

For the academic plan, Dench’s team is assessing SFU’s progress in developing new programs in areas such as the environment and health sciences, reviewing curriculum for learning outcomes and faculty research linkages, and

increasing student exposure to research, particu-larly at the undergraduate level.

The work ties in nicely with the accreditation process, which she aptly characterizes as “taking a snapshot of where we are in the university right now and assessing with some hard and fast met-rics how we’re doing on certain key performance indicators.”

That assessment will portray the university’s efforts to: y Offer a wide spectrum of quality programs. y Provide programs in areas of strength and

strategic importance. y Offer high-quality undergraduate and graduate

teaching. y Graduate students who are better writers with

superior quantitative reasoning skills and a wider breadth of knowledge.The accreditation process will “sharpen our

thinking about a lot of things we do and probably take for granted,” says Dench.

“There are many ways we collect data about what students think of SFU, but there are other things we perhaps don’t collect enough data on, which it would be helpful to know if we’re going to improve.

“We are, after all, a research institution. We shouldn’t exempt ourselves from that sort of analysis.”

ding more research into our undergraduate and graduate populations” and identifying potential barriers.

“The accreditation document is asking us to take a look at ourselves more critically and to make sure we have ways of assessing performance so we can go back and maybe look at things in ways we possibly haven’t done before,” says Parkhouse.

“Clearly, we are a research-intensive institution and we want to both identify and improve the quality and amount of the scholarly output of our researchers in whatever ways we can.

“But we also want to assess whether or not the institu-tion is developing the policies and procedures for improv-ing in all areas of scholarship related to our research and identify the issues that are preventing us from improving.”

tation, which the students don’t have the neces-sary time for anyway, and we’ll share the results and get input from everyone.”

Rahilly’s teammates include registrar Kate Ross, student affairs executive director, Nancy Johnston, internationalization director Bill Radford, Office for Aboriginal Peoples director, William Lindsay, and education dean Kris Mag-nusson. The two student members are commu-nications PhD student Scott Timcke and Paige Mackenzie who is completing a BA with a major in international studies.

For the academic plan, the team is focused on creating multiple admission routes to attract a more diverse student body, increasing student

retention rates, developing a more navigable curriculum and improving course access, and diversifying the university’s pedagogy.

For the accreditation project, they’re employing a number of indicators to assess student experi-ence and success, including surveys of various aspects of campus and academic life and SFU compiled retention and completion data. They will also analyze National Survey of Student Engage-ment and participation levels in initiatives such as Residence Life, Work Integrated Learning, SFU International and Recreation and Athletics.

Rahilly sees both the self-study and the academic plan as opportunities for transparency.

“We often look at our identity and try to figure

out who we are and what we want to be. And articulating these things in the form of goals and outcomes gives us a chance to say, ‘yes, I like this’ or ‘no, I don’t like this, and we should be going in a different direction.’”

Plus, he says, both projects “offer a real chance for people from different constituencies to engage on the topic. We’ve got a dean on our team, we’ve got students on our team, and we have administrators on our team.

“And, you know, it’s not always the case that we have an opportunity to put our heads together with our colleagues who are in a different part of the university, to talk about something we have in common.”

other things that happen around our structure.”Krane’s team has a long list of priorities begin-

ning with simplifying SFU’s overly complicated graduate tuitions structure and internal support programs to better meet graduate student needs.

But arguably its most far-reaching priority is to work with the finance department and faculty ad-ministrators to replace SFU’s incrementally based budgetary system with a performance-based system that instills greater operational planning transparency and accountability.

With the current system “You get what you had before or you take a cut and then new monies are added in based on what’s available. People really feel like they’re getting jerked in two directions.”

The proposed new system would tie budget levels directly to the tuition dollars faculties generate.

The university will also direct part of its provin-cial government grant monies directly to faculties and support areas and use success in Tri-Council competition as a determinant in divvying out federal government “indirect cost” money directly to the faculties.

Krane’s group is also looking at the ongoing reorganization of Continuing Studies and evaluating faculty revenue-sharing programs and university revenue-generating enterprises.

As well, it is weighing the pros and cons of admitting more international students and finding

better ways to manage enrollments.Many of the budgetary changes could happen

this fiscal year but others could take several years to implement.

“A lot of the things we’re doing will have a direct positive effect on the quality of the student experience,” says Krane, “by improving our ability to support world-class research, provide exciting degree opportunities and finance innovative teaching and learning.”

(L to R) David Zandvliet, Helen Wussow, research assistant Joanne Provencal, Sean Markey and Joanne Curry. (Missing: John Pierce.)

Norbert Haunerland Carl Lowenberger Barbara Mitchell Wade Parkhouse

SFN-SustainabilityInsert.indd 3 10-11-03 2:33 PM

4 Supplementsimon fraser university news y ViewPointAcAdemic y thursday november 4, 2010

Great expectations

The work of each theme team is twofold: supporting the implementation of the goals set out in the 2010-13 academic plan and assisting the accreditation project team to complete the university’s self-study by carrying out the core theme assessment required for the NWCCU.

These activities are highly integrated with one another and are being approached as a single task broken into two pieces. But because the accreditation self-study is both compulsory and driven by a shorter deadline—March 15, 2011—it has top priority until it is completed.

CORE THEMES VS. ACADEMIC THEMESAlthough the descriptions of the accreditation core themes and the academic themes are a little different, they have a very similar focus. But because the core themes cut across all university faculties and jurisdictions they are necessarily broader than the themes set out in the academic plan.

ASSESSMENT OF THE SFU CORE THEMES FOR ACCREDITATIONSFU has identifi ed four core themes that express the heart of its mission. Each core theme is refl ected in the academic plan, and the work of the theme teams in preparing for and carrying out the assessment of each theme will include considering how their assessment can be used to help implement the plan.

The fi fth academic theme, Financial Sustainability and Institutional Strength, enables SFU to fulfi ll its mission and, although not a core theme for accreditation purpose, must be woven through our accounts of the other four.

SFU’s performance in achieving its core themes will be the basis for assessing the university’s success in achieving its mission. So the accreditation self-study must carry out that assessment by: y Identifying institutional goals, strategies and indicators

for each core theme y Carrying out an assessment of our performance based on

our self-identifi ed criteria y Reaching an overall conclusion about the degree to which

we are fulfi lling our mission.Chapter 1 of the self-study articulates the goals, strat-

egies and indicators SFU has identifi ed, as well as its reasons for believing them to be “meaningful, assessable and verifi able”. These were provided to each theme team by the accreditation team. Chapter 4 gives a detailed account

of the university’s assessment process, what it has learned in the process, and whether and to what degree it is fulfi ll-ing its mission and this is where the theme teams’ assess-ments will be included.

The teams’ core theme assessments must be complete by March 15, with the self-study fi nished by April 30 so effi ciency in producing the assessments will be critical to achieving a quick turnaround. As a result, the teams are working closely with the accreditation team—Glynn Nichols, KC Bell, Lynda Erickson, Michelle Hunt and Louise Pa-quette—to ensure each teams’ assessments are incorpo-rated smoothly into the self-study document and resemble the format of the other core theme teams. For example, the data sets will, wherever possible, cover the same periods of time, with the data coming from Institutional Research and Plannning unless it is externally supplied.

THREE-YEAR ACADEMIC PLAN TASKThe academic plan identifi es fi ve themes, each with a number of associated goals, as well as number of supporting objectives and actions. As the plan runs through 2013, VP-academic Jon Driver has asked each theme team’s commitment to the end of the planning horizon.

The teams will decide how to approach their theme responsibilities, but they will communicate regularly with the VPA on signifi cant actions they believe are necessary to implement the plan. The teams will submit regular reports at the deans’ council to keep senior administrators abreast of progress.

The teams’ specifi c tasks include: y Communicating theme goals clearly, to make sure those

concerned clearly understand the intended focus of the implementation and how it is to be conducted.

y Drafting policy/papers/procedures to guide change where it is required

y Integrating what the teams learn from the accreditation assessment process to inform and improve the implementation of the academic plan goals

y Identifying possible barriers and potential solutions to achieving the goals

y Keeping the theme and its associated goal on the agendas of those involved in the process.

y Being recognized as “change agents”, “champions” and advisors with expertise in each theme.

WHAT IS ACCREDITATION?Accreditation is a voluntary, systematic review of an institution by an internationally recognized independent body of post-secondary professionals to assure high standards for performance, integrity and quality and to encourage continuous improvement. For example, among other things, the NWCUU will examine SFU’s governance and administration, academic programs, fi nancial condition, admissions and student services, resources, student academic achievement and organizational effectiveness.

WHY IS ACCREDITATION IMPORTANT?Accreditation conveys to the public that an institution has met the highest standards; it assures prospective students both at home and abroad that its programs and courses are of the highest quality and value.

WHY IS SFU SEEKING ACCREDITATION—AND WHY IN THE U.S.?SFU is seeking U.S. accreditation because Canada has no equivalent national or regional post-secondary accreditation process.

The university has several major reasons for wanting to be accredited: y Accreditation is a globally recognized stamp of quality assurance, one

that is increasingly important to international students seeking a North American education, particularly in B.C. where recent private post-secondary school failures have caused a great deal of negative publicity abroad.

y Accreditation will help SFU attract the very best international students. y Accreditation goals and outcomes match up well with SFU’s academic

planning objectives and its larger strategic-planning efforts. y Accreditation adheres the university to a widely recognized set of best

practices and a process of continuous improvement that will enhance academic quality, spark curriculum reform, increase accountability and improve institutional assessment and evaluation.

y International accreditation will enhance the value of an SFU degree for alumni abroad.

y Accreditation will simplify SFU relationships with U.S. institutions and agencies.

WHAT IS THE NWCCU? The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities is an independent, non-profi t membership organization recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. It is the regional authority on the educational quality and institutional effectiveness of post-secondary institutions in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington and now British Columbia. The commission oversees regional accreditation for 163 institutions. Its decision-making body consists of as many as 26 commissioners.

HOW LONG WILL ACCREDITATION TAKE?The full accreditation process will take between fi ve and seven years to complete. SFU is currently classifi ed as an “applicant”. Once SFU completes a self-study detailing how its policies, procedures and practices meet NWCCU prescribed standards and hosts a site visit from an evaluation committee of senior administrator and academic peers from U.S. institutions, it will receive

“candidate” status. During the “candidacy” period, which typically lasts three years, SFU will need to submit annual reports to the NWCCU and host further site visits from the evaluation committee every 18 months. Thereafter, if all goes well, SFU will be “accredited”. To maintain its accreditation status SFU must complete a full reaccreditation every seven years with regular reporting and site visit evaluations.

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?Based on the NWCCU’s current fi gures, SFU’s annual dues would be U.S. $13,600 once it is accredited. Until it becomes accredited, SFU will pay U.S. $22,000 annually, plus costs associated with evaluation committee site visits, self-study preparation and project management. The university will use Fraser International College revenues to pay for all costs incurred to obtain accreditation.

WHERE CAN I LEARN MORE? y Accreditation at SFU: www.sfu.ca/vpacademic/Academic_Planning/

Accreditation/ y Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities accreditation

standards: www.nwccu.org/Standards%20Review/Pages/RevisedStandards.htm

y An example of a recent self-study report: University of Alaska Anchorage www.uaa.alaska.edu/accreditation/

Q&AaccreDITaTIoN

THE ACCREDITATION TEAM: (Clockwise from left) Michelle Hunt, director of planning and analysis (fi nance) and self-study fi nancial author; Lynda Erickson, political science professor emeritus and self-study academic author; Glynn Nicholls, director of academic planning and budgeting and accreditation project manager; Louise Paquette, accreditation project program assistant, KC Bell director of special projects and primary self-study author.

aCCreditation mileStoneS

COMPLETE THE SELF STUDY REPORTApril 2011

APPROVAL BY BOARD OF GOVERNORSJune-July 2011

SUBMISSION TO NWCCUAugust 2011

SITE VISIT TO SFU BY NWCCUOctober 2011

NWCCU BOARD DECISION TO ACCEPT SFU AS A ‘CANDIDATE’January 2012

STUA

RT C

OLC

LEUG

H

SFN-SustainabilityInsert.indd 4 10-11-03 2:33 PM