PATHWAYS. Options for Student Success Efforts in Open, AQIP, and Standard

Transcription

1 PATHWAYS Options for Student Success Efforts in Open, AQIP, and Standard

2 Lynn Priddy, Vice President for Accreditation Services Steve Spangehl, Vice President for Accreditation Relations John Gardner, President Drew Koch, Executive Vice President Rob Rodier, Director of Technology & Communication

3 Student Success in Accreditation Open Pathway: Quality Initiative and planned Academy on Persistence & Completion (June 2013) AQIP Pathway: Action Projects, Systems Appraisal Standard Pathway: Optional addition to catalyze improvement ALL PATHWAYS: Criteria for Accreditation

4 Multiple Pathways Greater Value to Institutions ACCREDITATION Greater Credibility to the Public

5 Multiple Pathways Quality Assurance ACCREDITATION Quality Improvement

6 Multiple Pathways (last page)

7 Multiple Technologies AQIP Action Project Directory AQIP Electronic Systems Portfolio Open Pathway and Academy(ies) Collaboration Network (Open Pathway Quality Initiatives; Participants in HLC Academies) The Assurance System (Open & Standard Pathways)

8 Pathways for Reaffirmation of Accreditation AQIP Pathway Standard Pathway Open Pathway

9 AQIP Pathway Seven-year accrediting cycle Three sub-cycles: Action Cycle: Projects every year Strategic Cycle: Systems Portfolio & Appraisal every 4 years Reaffirmation Cycle: Quality Checkup Visit & Panel Reaffirmation every 7 years Does not use Assurance System (technology) at this point

10 1 AQIP Pathway 4 Cycles of Systematic Quality Improvement 7

11 AQIP s Categories of Systems Understanding Students and Other Stakeholders Needs Leading and Communicating Valuing People Building Collaborative Relationships Planning Continuous Improvement Helping Students Learn Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives Supporting Institutional Operations Measuring Effectiveness

12 AQIP Process Strategy Forum Action Projects Systems Portfolio Annual Updates Systems Appraisal Quality Checkup Reaffirmation of Accreditation

13 Student Success and AQIP Serves as a strategic focus through two categories: Helping Students Learning Understanding Student and Other Stakeholder Needs Offers focus for one or more action projects Intact group in AQIP already focused on working together on persistence and completion

14 FoE and AQIP Serve as one or more Action Projects Each stage serves as Action Project Annual and four-year cycle

15 Open Pathway FOCUS Quality Improvement Quality Improvement ACCREDITATION SPLIT Quality Assurance Quality Assurance (including compliance)

16 Open Pathway Ten-year accrediting cycle Assurance Review (at distance) in Year 4; Comprehensive Evaluation in Year 10 Improvement separated from Assurance; i.e. opens the Pathway for focus on QI Monitoring need reduced (no focused visits) Uses Assurance System (technology)

17 Open Pathway Quality Initiative Quality Improvement Assurance Process Quality Assurance

18 Assurance System Evidence File Accumulate & Update Evidence 1. Institution uploads documents; tags to Criteria, Core Components, Subcomponents, Federal Compliance requirements. 2. All evidence must be tagged or it is dropped from system; evidence accumulated over time.

19 Assurance System Evidence File Accumulate & Update Evidence 3. A few full documents required as uploads or links (audits, handbooks, rosters, budgets, etc.). 4. An area to upload new documents during the evaluation if requested or needed.

20 Assurance System Evidence File Accumulate & Update Evidence Assurance Argument Write or Update 5. Provides brief but thorough analysis of evidence and addresses required improvement areas. 6. Makes case institution meets Criteria & complies with federal requirements. 7. Links to selected materials in Evidence File.

21 Assurance System Evidence File Accumulate & Update Evidence Assurance Argument Write or Update Commission Documents Supplement to Review 8. Institutional Update information, public comments received. 9. Previous accreditation documents (team reports, appraisals, official communications).

22 Institutional View Assurance Filing Evidence File HLC-provided materials Institution-provided materials Addendum space (as needed) Assurance Argument Add-on templates as applicable (Federal Compliance in comprehensive evaluations) 22

23 Assurance Argument 35,000 word limit (40,000 for Standard Pathway) Links to uploaded evidence Organized by Criteria and Core Components; highly structured format Assurance Argument concept replaces the Self-Study model 23

24 Open Pathway Assurance Process (p. 14) 1. Institution uploads and links evidence on own timeline. 2. Institution analyzes evidence; writes or updates Assurance Argument. 3. Assurance Review Year 4 (w/o visit) identifies issues proactively; Comprehensive Evaluation in Year 10 (w/visit).

25 Open Pathway Assurance Process 4. Year 4 reviewers can interact with institution. 5. Year 4 & 10 reviews require 3, 5, or 7 reviewers (more may be needed at times) 6. Reviewers submit report. 7. Commission will disclose (abbreviated form) results of assurance reviews in standard format.

26 Assurance System Web-based system for Open & Standard (not used by AQIP Secure access for institutional representatives, peer reviewers, and HLC staff Maintained over entire timeline of HLC affiliation HLC s Assurance System is all that is required unless institution chooses other systems to help it organize materials, manage a process, etc. 26

27 Open Pathway Quality Initiative Quality Improvement Assurance Process Quality Assurance

28 Quality Initiative (p. 14) 1. Quality Initiative has appropriate scope, significance, clear outcomes, evidence of commitment and capacity, realistic timeline. 2.Chosen by institution to suit own purposes. 3. Conducted anytime between Years 5 and 9.

29 Quality Initiative (p. 14) 4. Separate Assurance Process OPENs the pathway to an institution s own focus on innovation & improvement.

30 Quality Initiative Quality Initiative Proposal Variations 1. Institution designs and proposes its own initiative. Pioneer Institutions, Cohort 1 2.Institution selects from a menu of topics 3. Institution joins Commission-facilitated program, such as the Academy. Pioneer Institutions, Cohorts 2 & 3

31 Quality Initiative First two variations allow institution to work completely on its own with its own focus or to work with others on same topic collaboratively Commission-facilitated variation allows for institution to interact with Commission use Commission at key points as catalyst, convener Collaboration software supports institutions in Commission-facilitated initaitives

32 Collaboration Network Web-based system for Open Pathway and Participants of Academy(ies) Secure access for institutional representatives, coaches & mentors, and HLC staff Allows for community of shared work, review, dialogue, critique and benchmarking if desired Allows for posting of projects, links to artifacts, communication across institutions 32

33 Possibilities Collaborative initiatives, shared topics Statewide or system endeavors Agency-linked ideas (AAC&U, CQIN, FoE) Optional electronic network, publishing and sharing information on initiatives Joint research, comparative data, postgraduation, longitudinal endeavors Full initiatives or key segments of larger initiatives

34 Seriousness of undertaking Significance: scope and impact of work Genuine Effort (Review at the end) Genuine commitment and sustained engagement Adequate resource provision

35 Goals Take risks Aim high Learn from success or failure Strive for significant impact Sincere, earnest, engaged work Institutions may publicize results and learning; Commission will not

36 Complete Open Pathway(p. 14) Results of Quality Initiative (Improvement) and Assurance Process come together for reaffirmation in Year 10.

37 FoE and Open Serve as one or more institutions Quality Initiatives (collaboratively or independently) Multi-year project required (not just planning) Can engage FoE for 1 or more years (mix and match, do part on own or all with FoE Can use any service of FoE (refresh, freshmen, transfer, or a combination) May simultaneously join Collaboration Network (if desired) May join the new HLC Academy on Persistence and Completion before or after FoE

38 Standard Pathway Quality Assurance ACCREDITATION Quality Improvement

39 Standard Pathway Ten-year accrediting cycle Required for all institutions in first ten-year period of accreditation Open to all institutions Serves as Pathway for institutions not eligible for Open or AQIP Pathways Uses Assurance System (technology)

40 Standard Pathway (p. 11) 1. Assurance & improvement integrated into Assurance Filing (Argument & Evidence File). 2.Improvement expectations related directly to assurance elements; i.e., the Criteria.

41 Standard Pathway 3. Institution uploads and links information to Criteria and Core Components (Evidence File). 4. Assurance Argument expanded to address required improvements.

42 Standard Pathway 5. Assurance Filing, Federal Compliance, other required materials submitted Years 4 & Comprehensive Evaluation (with visit) in Year 4 and Year 10.

43 Standard Pathway 7. Visit requires 3, 5, or 7 reviewers (additional as needed) for 1 ½ day visit (can be extended). 8. Reviewers submit report. 9. Reports, focused visits possible Years 1-3 & 5-9.

44 Standard Pathway 10.Reaffirmation occurs in Year 10 for majority. 11. Commission will disclose (abbreviated form) results of assurance reviews in standard format.

45 FoE and Standard Serve as intensive program to improve retention and completion Evidence may be used for accreditation purposes (multiple criteria) Offers structured program that s may be the right thing to do overall May parallel and assist in addressing issues identified by HLC

46 PATHWAYS One Accreditation Multiple Pathways to Reaffirmation

47 The Higher Learning Commission & the John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education Leveraging Student Success Initiatives within Accreditation Processes

48 Today s Hosts Drew Koch Executive Vice President John Gardner President Rob Rodier Director of Technology and Communication 48

49 49 M m m

50 Goals of the Discussion Provide a brief overview of the FoE self-study process California Lutheran University Set groundwork for additional conversations Inspire you to make new and transfer student transition a higher priority Consider how your college can connect a focus on new and transfer student success to HLC options for reaccreditation 50

51 Choices and More Good Choices You have at least 4 options with the Gardner Institute 1. Foundations of Excellence (FoE) First Year 2. FoE First Year and Implement 3. FoE Transfer Focus 4. FoE Transfer Focus and Implement 5. Combinations of the above 51

52 Connected to HLC Choices Open Pathway Quality Initiative Standard Pathway AQIP Action Projects 52

53 HLC & Gardner Institute Shared Goals Improve student learning and success Increase institutional accountability for student learning Increase educational quality Strengthen institutional viability and effectiveness Conduct assessment which is used as basis for decision making for education improvement Design quality initiatives and implement them Learn from and actually enjoy the above lines of work 53

54 What is the Gardner Institute? 1. A nonprofit, 501C3 public charity 2. Based in NC, but operating throughout the US and occasionally outside 3. A professional agency partner with your regional accreditor, HLC 4. Established in 1999 with grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts in same round of grants that created AQIP common original goal to increase institutional accountability for student learning 54

55 What is the Gardner Institute, pt 2 5. An organization that provides advisory support to all institutional types to improve assessment of first college year and transfer experience, as means of improving student success and retention rates. 6. Offers the signature process Foundations of Excellence 231 participating institutions since Community Colleges 130 four-year institutions 93 HLC institutions 27 AQIP institutions 66 PEAQ institutions 55

56 The Central Educational Questions: What is excellence in the first year or transfer-student experience? What would a community college have to do to have an excellent first year or transfer experience? How does your institution s current approach to the first year or transfer experience measure up? 56

57 What is Foundations of Excellence? Comprehensive self-study, improvement, and implementation process A task force form of assessment Moves beyond a focus on individual programs to a coordinated plan for improving the first year or transfer experience 57

58 What is Foundations of Excellence? Affirms what is working well and identifies areas for improvement Results in a strategic action plan A plan that must then be implemented! Moves beyond a sole focus on retention 58

59 Why is a self study of the first year and/or transfer experience needed? Because most campuses have programs and policies but not a comprehensive design/plan Transfer Policies FY Seminar Academic Advising A Grand Design for Excellence in the New Student Experience 59

60 Why Participate? Join a national conversation Create a campus-wide conversation Improve institutional efficiencies Improve integration and coordination Increase faculty ownership for first-year or transfer improvement efforts Improve student success and retention rates Incorporate with reaccreditation 60

61 Why Participate? Bottom Line Help Students and Improve Student Success! Thus enhance overall institutional effectiveness, prestige, and reputation 61

62 62 How does FoE work? Please visit for more information about the specific components of the self-study process.

63 The Intellectual Framework Philosophy Improvement Organization Roles & Purposes Foundational Dimensions Learning Diversity Faculty/ Campus Culture All Students Transitions 63

64 The FoE Task Force: Composition and Roles Assessment Professionals Others who interact with students FoE Task Force Faculty Academic Administrators Student Affairs Students 64

65 Liaisons Steering Committee 9 Dimension Committees 65

66 Tools Provided through FoEtec The Current Practices Inventory (CPI) FoE Faculty/Staff & Student Surveys Performance Indicators specific to each Dimension Online access for all task force members to self-study components 66

67 The Role of the Gardner Institute and FoE Outcomes Please visit for more information 67

68 Role of the Gardner Institute Launch, Summit, and Winter Meetings Institute Advisor Written Feedback Self-study process webinars National recognition North Iowa Area Community College Year Launch Meeting Purdue University Year Launch Meeting 68

69 Foundations of Excellence Aggregate Retention Analysis Drake 2010 Origins Excellence not retention But... Results Significant positive gains in full-time retention rates Implementation is crucial

70 Aggregate Retention Changes FoE Participation Percentage Point Change in Rate Institutions' change in 1-yr retention rates by time post action plan implementation year Implement year 1yr post 2yr post 3yr post 4yr post

71 Aggregate Retention Changes FoE Implementation Change in first-to-second year retention rates post implementation of FoE action plan by level of implementation Percentage Point Change in Rate Implement year 1yr post 2yr post 3yr post 4yr post high degree Not high degree

72 Foundations of Excellence First-to-Second Year Full-Time Student Retention Rates for Two-Year Institutions Institutions Change in Full-Time 1-yr Retention Rates by Length of Time Post Self-Study year post 2-years post 3-years post 4-years post

73 Foundations of Excellence First-to-Second Year Part-Time Student Retention Rates for Two-Year Institutions Institutions Change in Part-Time 1-yr Retention Rates by Length of Time Post Self-Study year post 2-years post 3-years post 4-years post

74 Enrollment gains Enhanced assessment efforts including increased capacity and experience with: Understanding institution-wide assessment Using assessment results to actually make decisions Increased campus-wide awareness Improved collaboration More faculty buy-in 74

75 A strategic plan for improving the first year and/or the transfer experience Linkage to Institutional strategic planning General education revision Integration with other single or multi-institution projects Interests of boards of trustees Reaffirmation of accreditation 75

76 Linking FoE to HLC It s all up to you! Your choice. You must be accredited and reaccredited You do NOT have to work with the Gardner Institute The HLC/Gardner Institute partnership gives you the opportunity to improve your college s performance in areas of new student success and simultaneously reaffirm reaccreditation How? 76

77 Linking FoE to HLC How? 1. Open Pathway 2. AQIP 3. Standard Pathway 77

78 Open Pathway Use FoE process as basis of your Quality Initiative to measure current performance, develop and implement action plan Can use FoE Implement process or do it yourself This would take 2 years minimum Apply to FoE first FoE must be approved by HLC if to be part of QI Reporting on FoE implementation to be integrated into HLC reporting requirements for double credit. 78

79 AQIP FoE First Year and Transfer Focus can be used as an AQIP Action Project FoE Implement can be used as AQIP Action Project Successful completion of FoE planning process can be used to demonstrate sufficient capacity for assessment to support application to be an AQIP institution. 79

80 The Standard Pathway FoE s Nine Foundational Dimensions of Excellence connect to HLC criteria FoE process can contribute to the Evidence File FoE process can demonstrate institutional intrinsic commitment to assessment and show how used to bring improvements 80

81 Comprehensive Fees for NEW Institutions For Either First Year or Transfer Focus $42,000 Base Fee $5,500 Survey Fee $47,500 Total $18,400 Optional Implement Fee 81

82 Advisory support and feedback from a senior Institute Advisor Two-years use of all intellectual properties (Foundational Dimensions, Performance Indicators, FoE template) The FoEtec software platform Two surveys: the FoE student survey and FoE faculty/staff survey Launch Meeting Summit Meeting Webinars National recognition 82

83 Foundation of Excellence: Links Below are links to resources referenced in the presentation and a web-based contact link you can use for questions or comments. 83 The John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education: Foundations of Excellence: FoE Retention Correlation Analyses: research-links-foe-to-retention-gains Contact Us:

84 For more information Please feel free to contact us with questions and comments. John Gardner, President , ext 103 Drew Koch, Executive Vice President , ext 108 Rob Rodier, Director of Communication and Technology , ext 106 University of Akron Western Illinois University