Academic Quality Improvement Program Higher Learning Commission AQIP Portfolio Development and...
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Academic Quality Improvement Program Higher Learning Commission AQIP Portfolio Development and...
Academic Quality Improvement Program
Higher Learning Commission
AQIP Portfolio Development and Accreditation
Pamela Miller, Ph.D.August 15, 2011
Session Description
The College’s third AQIP portfolio will be submitted in May for review
by the Higher Learning Commission for reaccreditation purposes.
Category teams have been working since February to document how
the College meets the required HLC performance criteria in nine of
the major systems employed to accomplish its mission and objectives.
This session will provide an overview of the AQIP process, the on-
going portfolio development work, and institutional challenges to
continuous improvement. Learn how you might become involved in
AQIP related quality initiatives and share your thoughts regarding
potential future Action Projects that the College might undertake.
Definition of Accreditation“Accreditation is a process of external quality review created and used by higher education to scrutinize colleges, universities and programs for quality assurance and quality improvement. In the U.S., accreditation is carried out by private, nonprofit organizations designed for this specific purpose.” - Judith S. Eaton, President, CHEA
• Roles of Accreditationo Assuring quality
• Quality of faculty, curriculum, student services, etc.• Fiscal stability
– Institutional mission is central to quality judgments
o Access to federal and state funds• Financial Aid• Grants
o Engendering private sector confidence• Individuals• Employers• Foundations
o Easing transfer between institutions
Maintaining Accreditation• All institutions accredited by the Higher Learning Commission must
demonstrate how they meet the HLC’s Five Criteria for Accreditationo 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
• Each Criterion has three elements: Criterion Statement, Core
Components, and Examples of Evidence
• The Criteria are currently under revision (will not impact this
portfolio submission)
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
2012-13o Standard Pathway
o AQIP Pathway
o Open Pathway
• San Juan College adopted AQIP as its model for
reaffirming its accreditation in November 2000
SJC Accreditation History
Year of Last PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluation: 1993 -
1994
Year of Admission to AQIP: 11/20/2000
Year of Last Reaffirmation of Accreditation: 2007 -
2008
Year of Next Reaffirmation of Accreditation: 2014 -
2015
Year of Last System Appraisal: 2007 - 2008
Year of Next System Appraisal: 2011 - 2012
Due Date of Next Systems Portfolio: 6/1/12Source: HLC Statement of Affiliation
About AQIP
• AQIP is a quality improvement model that focuses on the
key systems and processes an institution uses to achieve its
mission
• AQIP’s nine categories provide a framework for institutions
to examine their key processes
• AQIP’s core processes are structured in a 7-year cycleo Strategy Forum
o Action Projects with Annual Updates
o Systems Portfolio
o Systems Appraisal
o Quality Checkup Site Visit
o Reaffirmation of Accreditation
About AQIP
Action - Annual Cycle
• Action Project Updates (Sept)
• Feedback
• Incorporation into Systems Portfolio
Strategy - Four-Year Cycle
• Strategy Forum
• Systems Portfolio
• Appraisal Feedback Report
Accreditation – Seven-Year Cycle
• Check-up Visit
• Reaffirmation
Systems Portfolio
• Systems Portfolio – consists of an Organizational Overview and
examines each of the major systems employed to accomplish the
organization’s mission and objectives
• Nine Categories:
o Helping Students Learn
o Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives
o Understanding Students’ and Other Stakeholders’ Needs
o Valuing People
o Leading and Communicating
o Supporting Institutional Operations
o Measuring Effectiveness
o Planning Continuous Improvement
o Building Collaborative Relationships
The AQIP Category Framework
• Process Standardso 8P4. How do you coordinate and align your planning processes,
organizational strategies, and action plans across your organization’s various levels?
• Results Standardso 8R2. What are your performance results for accomplishing your
organizational strategies and action plans?
• Improvements Standardso 8I1. What recent improvements have you made in this category? How
systematic and comprehensive are your processes and performance results for Planning Continuous Improvement?
SJC AQIP Schedule
• Action Projects
• Systems Portfolio
• Systems Appraisal
• Strategy Forum
• Quality Check-up Visit
• Reaffirmation of Accreditation
– Three New Actions Projects October 1, 2011
– November 1, 2011June 1, 2012
– Sept/Oct, 2012
– Spring 2013
– Fall 2013 or Spring 2014
– AY 2014 - 2015
Visit the SJC website to view AQIP documents
SJC 2012 Systems Portfolio
• Shared DriveMy Computer, Tools, Map Network DriveDrive: <choose an available drive letter)
Folder: \\link\aqip
Finish
SJC Portfolio Category Leaders and Liaisons
Category 1 Helping Students Learn Sher Hruska, Dave Eppich, Lisa Wilson, Stacey Bradley
Category 2 Accomplishing Other Distinct ObjectivesSher Hruska, Liesl Dees, Ken Kernagis
Category 3 Understanding Students’ and Other Stakeholders’ Needs
Dave Eppich, Tim Warren, Susan Grimes, Heather JamesCategory 4 Valuing People
Dave Eppich, Stacey Allen, Skylar Matsen
Category 5 Leading and CommunicatingMike Tacha, Kimberly Mathes, Sam Bachert
Category 6 Supporting Institutional OperationsRussell Litke, Tim Warren, Karen King
Category 7 Measuring EffectivenessRussell Litke, Dianne Garcia, Tim Schroeder
Category 8 Planning Continuous ImprovementRussell Litke, Laurie Gruel, Shelley Pickett
Category 9 Building Collaborative RelationshipsSher Hruska, Nancy Shepherd, Bill Lewis, Machell Day
SJC 2012 Systems Portfolio
• Category Team Members
• Process and Timeline
o Phase I – Gap Analysis (Feb – Apr 2011)
o Phase II – Standards Analysis (May – July 2011)
o Phase III – Draft Portfolio (Aug 2011 – Jan 2012)
o Phase IV – Stakeholder Review (Feb – Apr 2012)
o Phase V – Submission (May 2012)
Current Status
• 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
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
Opportunities for Involvement
• Opportunities for involvement:o Category team member
o Provide requested information
o Review documents on shared drive
and provide feedback to teams
o Participate in open forums
o Serve on the writing team
Questions?Pamela Miller, Ph.D.Associate Vice President for [email protected] 566-3217