AQIP Portfolio Development
and Accreditation
Pamela Miller, Ph.D.
August 15, 2011
Academic Quality Improvement Program
Higher Learning Commission
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 Accreditation
o
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 Accreditation
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
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 2012-13
o
Standard Pathway
o
AQIP Pathway
o
Open Pathway
San Juan College adopted AQIP as its model for reaffirming
its accreditation in November 2000
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: 6/1/12
Source: 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 cycle
o
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 Categories
The AQIP Category Framework
•
Process Standards
o
•
Results Standards
o
•
8P4. How do you coordinate and align your planning processes, organizational
strategies, and action plans across your organization’s various levels?
8R2. What are your performance results for accomplishing your organizational
strategies and action plans?
Improvements Standards
o
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
–
Three New Actions Projects
October 1, 2011
•
Systems Portfolio
–
November 1, 2011
June 1, 2012
•
Systems Appraisal
–
Sept/Oct, 2012
•
Strategy Forum
–
Spring 2013
•
Quality Check-up Visit
–
Fall 2013 or Spring 2014
•
Reaffirmation of Accreditation
–
AY 2014 - 2015
Visit the SJC website to view AQIP documents
SJC 2012 Systems Portfolio
•
Shared Drive
My Computer, Tools, Map Network Drive
Drive:
<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 Objectives
Sher Hruska, Liesl Dees, Ken Kernagis
Category 3
Understanding Students’ and Other Stakeholders’ Needs
Dave Eppich, Tim Warren, Susan Grimes, Heather James
Category 4
Valuing People
Dave Eppich, Stacey Allen, Skylar Matsen
Category 5
Leading and Communicating
Mike Tacha, Kimberly Mathes, Sam Bachert
Category 6
Supporting Institutional Operations
Russell Litke, Tim Warren, Karen King
Category 7
Measuring Effectiveness
Russell Litke, Dianne Garcia, Tim Schroeder
Category 8
Planning Continuous Improvement
Russell Litke, Laurie Gruel, Shelley Pickett
Category 9
Building Collaborative Relationships
Sher 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 Learning
[email protected]
566-3217