Transcript AQIP Project Status Update

AQIP Project Status Update
AQIP Steering Committee Meeting
August 26, 2011
Academic Quality Improvement Program
Higher Learning Commission
Project Timeline – Portfolio Development
Gap Action
Plan
Standard
Action
Plan
Feb-April ’11
May-July ’11
Draft
Chapter
Index to
HLC
Criteria
Aug-Dec ‘11
Jan ’12
Stakeholder
Review
Submit
Portfolio
Feb-April ’12
May ’12
Current Status – Portfolio Development
•
Phase I – Gap Analysis <COMPLETED>
o
•
Identification of critical gaps
• O’s and OO’s from 2008 Systems Appraisal
• Review HOT Teams Top 13 (critical issues) and Category Reports
Phase II – Standards Analysis <IN PROCESS>
Identification – Exploration – Documentation
o
build upon gap analysis and expand focus to include all category standards
o
identify process owners
o
request information from process owners (AQIP Category Worksheet)
o
select activities to highlight in the portfolio (strengths)
o
review current Action Projects
Current Status – Portfolio Development
Gap
Action
Plan
Category 3
Category 7 I
Category 9
Standard
Action
Plan
Category 4
Category 5 I
Category 6
Category 8 I
Draft
Chapter
Category 1
Category 2
I = Institutional issues need to be addressed to move forward
Index to
HLC
Criteria
Institutional Challenges
•
•
Changes in leadership
Institutional commitment to AQIP and continuous improvement
principles
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of clearly defined decision making structure
Lack of strategic plan and concurrent strategic planning process
Limited use of data in decision-making
Lack of process documentation
Limited faculty participation
Continued changes in leadership…
Institutional Challenges
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Changes in leadership
Continued changes in leadership…
Departure of Dr. Spencer and appointment of Interim President Tacha
Changes in Board of Trustees
Departure of Dr. Brown, AVP Institutional Resources
Change in ELT membership
Departure of Mr. Jones, VP Administrative Services
Departure of Linda Baker, Category 5 Liaison
Departure of David Penrose, Category 5 Liaison
Institutional Challenges
•
•
•
•
•
Institutional commitment to AQIP, continuous improvement principles
Lack of clearly defined decision making structure
Lack of strategic plan and concurrent strategic planning process
Limited of use of data in decision-making
Meeting with ELT, SPOT members, and AQIP Category Teams 5, 7 and 8
took place on June 21 to begin to address the critical issues outlined in the
5/20/11 AQIP update provided to ELT (organizational structure, use of
data in decision making).
o
A SPOT Tactical Team has been charged to work with the TSO to conduct
research and make recommendations to this larger group regarding
organizational structure and decision making. This report is due in September.
•
ELT has asked that Dr. Hruska and Dr. Miller facilitate a Board
Work Session on our AQIP portfolio development work.
Institutional Challenges
•
Lack of process documentation
•
•
Institutions accomplish work through the processes they use
Process improvements are central to achieving performance
improvements
•
Processes that are formal, prescribed, and documented are more
likely to be improved upon
•
Formalized processes tend to produce consistent results
Establishing and Maintaining Momentum
•
•
Re-engage team members
Reminder of the critical importance of the accreditation process and
status
•
Renewed commitment and focus
After all… the clock is ticking,
and late work is not accepted!
Next Steering Committee Task
Consideration of Criteria of Accreditation
and Minimum Expectations
Five Criteria for Accreditation
•
Criteria (fundamental requirements)
o
Core Components (focal areas)
• Sub-components (further delineate expectations)
– “Overlay” of Minimum Expectations in 6 areas (Sep 2010)
•
Current Criteria
o
Criterion One: Mission and Integrity
o
Criterion Two: Preparing for the Future
o
Criterion Three: Student Learning and Effective Teaching
o
Criterion Four: Acquisition, Discovery, and Application of Knowledge
o
Criterion Five: Engagement and Service
The Criteria for Accreditation seek evidence of:
Improvement
Aspiration
Best Practices
The Commission will grant or continue (with or
without conditions or sanctions), deny, or
withdraw accreditation based on the outcome of
peer review.
Commission Actions and Sanctions
•
Progress reports are used to track how an institution is progressing in coping with
certain changes or challenges, or receive evidence that plans came to fruition.
•
Monitoring reports are used in situations requiring careful ongoing attention. The
Commission may call for additional reports, require a focused visit, or, following
guidance from the team, move forward the date of the next comprehensive
evaluation.
•
Contingency reports are used when HLC anticipates an event that could change
conditions that would have a significant effect on the organization.
•
Commission Sanctions
o
An institution is Placed on Notice if it is found to be pursuing a course of action that could
result in its being unable to meet one or more Criteria for Accreditation.
o
Probation signifies that conditions exist at an accredited institution that endanger its ability
to meet one or more of the Commission’s Criteria for Accreditation.
HLC Accreditation Programs/Models
•
•
•
•
PEAQ - the Program to Evaluate and Advance Quality
AQIP - the Academic Quality Improvement Program
Pathways - a new model that will replace PEAQ in 2012-13
o
Standard Pathway
o
AQIP Pathway
o
Open Pathway
San Juan College adopted AQIP as its model for reaffirming
its accreditation in November 2000
Criteria Revision Initiative
Criteria Revision Initiative
•
•
Good practice to review criteria every 5 years
Greater specificity required by the US Dept of ED (spring 2010)
o
Minimum Expectations - articulations of “tacit understandings” within
higher education
•
•
Alpha version reviewed at Annual Conference in April, 2011
o
Reorganization of the 5 Criteria
o
Revision of Core Components
o
Addition of Sub-Components
o
Introduction of Minimum Expectations
Beta version released for review – July 15, 2011
o
Reorganization of the 5 Criteria
o
Revision, Deletion, and Addition of:
• Core Components
• Sub-components
• Minimum Expectations (now organized by the Criteria)
Evolution of the Criteria for Accreditation
Current Criteria
Alpha Revision
Beta Revision
One
Mission and Integrity
Mission
Mission
Two
Preparing for the Future
Integrity
Integrity
Three
Student Learning and Effective
Teaching
Resources and Planning
Academic Programs-Quality,
Resources and Support
Four
Acquisition, Discovery, and
Application of Knowledge
Effective Teaching and Learning
Academic Programs-Evaluation and
Improvement
Five
Engagement and Service
Substance and Rigor
Resources and Planning
Criteria Revision Initiative
•
•
•
•
Final version released for review @ Nov-Dec 2011
o
Seven Regional Forums (summer 2011)
o
Commission Board Review (November 2011)
Approval by Commission Board @ February 2012
Effective November 2012 for AQIP institutions submitting portfolios
Effective January 1, 2013 for Change Requests
Criteria Revision Initiative – Articulation of Core Values
1.
Focus on student learning
2.
Education as a public purpose
3.
Education for a diverse, technological, globally connected world
4.
A culture of continuous improvement
5.
Evidence-based institutional learning and self-presentation
6.
Integrity, transparency, and ethical behavior or practice
7.
Governance for the well-being of the institution and its stakeholders
8.
Planning and management of resources to ensure institutional
sustainability
9.
Mission-centered evaluation
10.
Accreditation through peer review
Criteria Revision Initiative – Summary
•
More specificity:
o
Additional Core Components
o
Additional Sub-Components
o
Significant expansion of the number of Minimum Expectations articulated
• Institutions are NOT required to directly address these minima
• A tool for Peer Reviewers when a concern arises
•
Effective November 2012 for AQIP institutions submitting portfolios
o
SJC’s 2012 portfolio will address the CURRENT Criteria
Providing Evidence that SJC Meets all Criteria and
all of the Core Components
•
•
The Portfolio must contain an Index to the Evidence for the Criteria
The handout provides a visual of the AQIP standards that the 2007
Portfolio used to address specific Core Components of the Criteria
o
Category teams should carefully review these Core Components, as well as
the associated Minimum Expectations
o
The Steering Committee will be responsible for creating the 2012 Index
against the current Core Components
o
The Steering Committee will be responsible for reviewing the Minimum
Expectations associated with the Criteria