PAB Relocation
In March 2005, PAB moved from Des Moines to Chicago, subletting space from the American Planning Association (APA). Last year, APA decided to not renew its lease and will move to a new location (205 N. Michigan Avenue) in June 2010. Although APA generously made room for PAB to join them at the new location, space constraints and the availability of low rents gave PAB the opportunity to evaluate other locations. The search was successful and in late February, PAB moved to the landmark Monadnock Building (http://www.monadnockbuilding.com) in Chicago’s Loop. Although the space includes less total square feet, the layout is more efficient and cost-effective. Visitors to the open house party last month wistfully remarked that they wished they could work in such a fine space.

Collaborating to Collect, Analyze, and Disseminate Data
PAB continues to collaborate with ACSP, AICP, and APA to identify and use information collected by each organization as a resource for tracking, summarizing and comparing changes in measures of professional education, activity and outcomes.

APA has agreed to collect planning school graduation information through the online AICP exam registration process. PAB and member schools can eventually use this information to track AICP exam taking and success rates for cohorts of graduating students as part of a larger effort to conduct improved outcomes assessment.

APA agreed to share electronic copies of data from its Salary Surveys (every two years) and the 2007 APA Job Survey (every 10 years) with PAB. I and PAB Task Force member Bruce Stiftel, FAICP (PAB member and Professor and Director at Georgia Institute of Technology) invited planning analysts Linda Dalton, AICP (Vice President, Planning & Enrollment Management at California State University, East Bay), Praveen Maghelal (Assistant Professor at University of North Texas), and Connie Ozawa (Professor at Portland State University), to analyze the data to describe and evaluate changes within the profession. The analysts agreed to present their analysis of this data at the ACSP Conference in Minneapolis. The session is entitled “Planner Skills, Preparation, and Job Success” and is scheduled October 7, 9:45 – 11:15 am in the conference hotel. This same team put on a similar session at APA’s spring conference in New Orleans.

PAB 2009 Annual Report
PAB has been growing its collection of student and faculty data via information submitted annually by all accredited programs. In this year’s report race/ethnicity tables were changed to match US Census data. Program chairs also noticed the following changes, most of which are as a result of Data Task Force discussions:

1. Other degrees held by fulltime, part-time, and adjunct/contract faculty were collected.
2. The frequency of use of “professors of practice” and/or “planners-in-residence”
3. The degree to which curriculum is delivered via distance education.

While PAB’s 2009 Annual Report will be available in the near future, I wanted to share preliminary results on these last two topics:

• Of the 74 universities that house the 86 programs PAB accredits, 12 (27%) answered “yes” to having a Planner in Residence or Professor of Practice in the program.
• Nine universities (12%) reported delivering a portion of their program via distance education. The range varied from less than 1% of a program to roughly 20%

PAB is sponsoring a second session in Minneapolis where planners and educators will talk about how programs are effectively incorporating professionals into the curriculum in ways beyond the most typical model of adjunct or lecturer. Panelists in Minneapolis include: Harrison Higgins (a former Professor of Practice at Florida State); Alex Krieger (Professor in Practice and Interim Chair, Harvard University Graduate School of Design); and John Shapiro (Chair, Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment, Pratt Institute. The session is entitled “Fitting Into the Academy” and is scheduled October 7, 1:00 – 2:30 pm at the conference hotel.

Outcomes Assessment
We’ve just completed the second year programs undergoing the accreditation process incorporated outcomes assessment (assessment of student learning and achievement) into their Self-Study Reports and Site Visits. Though not a new requirement (accreditation criterion 1.9 – Educational Outcomes – has been in place since 2001), the shift in emphasis reflects growing demands for accountability in higher education. PAB acknowledges that it will take a number of review cycles before all of us learn how to assess the outcomes and impact of planning education in valid, useful and efficient ways.

The emphasis on outcomes assessment encourages accreditors like PAB to focus less on what programs do and more on the steps taken to ensure that programs self monitor educational efforts. If programs study the quality and impact of educational improvement on a routine basis, then the periodic Self-Study Report for accreditation review will be less a disruptive burden and more an opportunity for review and reflection. PAB still plays its role of ensuring quality education, but accreditation shifts from the current emphasis on summative evaluation with more emphasis on formative evaluation.

PAB has begun collecting data on the performance indicators programs are using to collect data used assess whether objectives regarding student learning and achievement are being met. Programs report using surveys – of students, alums, and employers – as a primary source of outcome data. Other indicators include awards, focus groups, interviews, judges/panels, and pre-tests/post-tests. PAB is working with APA regarding collection and dissemination of meaningful AICP exam pass rate data. Until that information is adequately collected and available, programs are not held accountable for not having it.

In Spring 2009, the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) invited roughly 3,000 chief academic officers at all regionally accredited US undergraduate-degree-granting, two-and four-year, public, private, and for-profit institutions to respond to a series of questions about the assessment activities underway at their institutions an how assessment results are being used. The full report released in October 2009 contains a great deal of information regarding what universities are doing at the macro level, what tools are being used, and how the data is being used. “At the program level, the most common approaches to assessing learning outcomes were student portfolios, measures of specialized knowledge and other performance assessments, and rubrics. More than 80% of institutions indicated at least one of their academic programs was using one of these approaches. While campus-wide assessments tended to rely on surveys, such approaches were infrequently used for program assessment.” The study goes on to show the percentage of programs who identified external judges (>70%), student interviews and employer surveys (>60% each), local surveys and employer interviews (roughly 50% each), alumni surveys and alumni interviews (roughly 40% each), and national surveys (<10%) as other approaches being used. I encourage you to read this report. Most universities and programs report that the most common uses of assessment data relate to accreditation rather than revising learning goals and/or improving instructional performance. It is clear we all still have work to do.

Other Board Initiatives
The PAB has begun a comprehensive review of the accreditation criteria. We expect to reduce the number of standards to avoid redundancy, streamline requirements, and promote simplicity. We anticipate this will take about three years with many phases as dictated by The Accreditation Document. As you participate, we hope that you will consider the emphasis on learning outcomes as a guide. We anticipate having a first draft to begin initial conversations in late fall 2010.

2009 Outstanding Site Visitors
PAB service involves a considerable commitment of time and effort. We instituted the Outstanding Site Visitor award in 2008 to cast the spotlight of recognition on some of our most dedicated contributors. Lew Hopkins, Ph.D., FAICP (Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois – Urbana Champaign) is the ACSP recipient; Rich Bickel, AICP (Director, Division of Planning – Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission / Philadelphia, PA) is the AICP recipient. 2010 Recipients will be announced in September 2010.

Communicating with Sponsoring Organizations
PAB hosted two “Presidents Meetings” in 2009, with presidents of PAB, ACSP, AICP, and APA. These meetings brief sponsor leadership on PAB initiatives, answer questions, air criticism and review policy. PAB, an autonomous 501( c ) 3 organization, has close ties with these sponsoring organizations. Regular meetings of leadership provide opportunities for sponsors to play an active role supporting the mission of PAB and developing ways to improve the role of planning education for the profession and the many constituencies it serves.

Sincerely,
Charles J. Hoch, Ph.D.
Professor, Urban Planning and Policy Program
University of Illinois at Chicago
Chair, Planning Accreditation Board, 2008-2010