Academic Quality Improvement Program

Higher Learning Commission

AQIP Project Status UpdateAQIP Steering Committee MeetingAugust 26, 2011

Gap Action Plan

Standard Action Plan

Draft Chapter

Index to HLC

Criteria

Project Timeline – Portfolio Development

Feb-April ’11 May-July ’11 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

Gap Action Plan

Standard Action Plan

DraftChapter

Index to HLC

Criteria

Current Status – Portfolio Development

Category 3Category 7 I

Category 9Category 4Category 5 I

Category 6Category 8 I

Category 1Category 2

I = Institutional issues need to be addressed to move forward

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 TaskConsideration 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 Criteriao 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

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.

The Criteria for Accreditation seek evidence of:

• 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 Sanctionso 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.

Commission Actions and Sanctions

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

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, 2011o 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, 2011o 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

ThreeStudent Learning and Effective Teaching

Resources and PlanningAcademic Programs-Quality, Resources and Support

FourAcquisition, 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 2011o 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

portfolioso 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 Criteriao 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