1 / 73

How to Develop Achieving the Dream Strategies that will also Satisfy Accreditation Requirements

How to Develop Achieving the Dream Strategies that will also Satisfy Accreditation Requirements. Achieving the Dream Winter Strategies Institute – 2010 Terri Manning, Carol Rush and Lane Glenn. Focus of this Session. This workshop will:

sybill-wong
Download Presentation

How to Develop Achieving the Dream Strategies that will also Satisfy Accreditation Requirements

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How to Develop Achieving the Dream Strategies that will also Satisfy Accreditation Requirements Achieving the DreamWinter Strategies Institute – 2010 Terri Manning, Carol Rush and Lane Glenn

  2. Focus of this Session • This workshop will: • present the common requirements of the six regional accrediting agencies and • show how Achieving the Dream strategies can be constructed, delivered and evaluated to provide evidence of compliance with key accreditation standards and • show how Achieving the Dream can drive an institution’s quality improvement agenda • examples from Achieving the Dream colleges will be presented

  3. The Achieving the Dream Colleges 72% of AtD colleges are accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association or the Higher Learning Commission or North Central

  4. Similarities Among Accrediting Agencies • While there are some differences among the accrediting agencies, all of them follow institutional quality improvement frameworks that require colleges to: •  Determine the conditions that affect the college’s faculty, staff, and students, and the local community through needs assessment and environmental scanning. • Establish appropriate goals and outcomes, with an emphasis on learning outcomes for courses, programs, and support services. • Measure progress toward attaining the goals and desired outcomes. • Analyze the results of assessments and evaluations to document the need for improvements in programs and services. • Develop interventions or strategies to increase student, faculty, staff, and community success, and improve programs and services. • Demonstrate how these interventions and strategies have improved institutional quality.

  5. Two Agencies Have Additional Processes NC – Higher Learning Commission has two processes: PEAQ (self-study, compliance certification) and AQIP. The college can choose but must apply to be an AQIP college. They only do one – not both. SACS – Commission on College has two processes: the self-study, compliance certification and the QEP (quality enhancement plan). All colleges do both.

  6. All Agencies Including “Quality Language” • Because all six include language such as • … strengthening educational quality • …. improving institutional quality • …. ensure the quality and integrity of its academic programs • It has become critical that institutions are able to prove and document their processes for improving institutional quality. Where is that more important than: • Student success • Student learning

  7. Ask Faculty/Staff If we improved the quality of student learning, what would it look like? What would we observe? What could we measure? If we could improve the quality of a student’s experience at the college, what would need to change? What would we observe and measure?

  8. Areas Where Colleges are Getting in Trouble Assessment (especially student learning outcomes, more specifically, general education learning outcomes) Quality – demonstrating it is hard – not part of our culture to say “look how great we are” Tying strategies to planning and budgeting

  9. We Did a Survey of Core Team Leaders of Achieving the Dream Colleges • Surveyed all round 1, 2, and 3 colleges in 2008. • One-third responded (N=20) • We asked them questions about how they were using their data, strategies, etc. for accreditation, strategic planning, obtaining additional funding and for institutional effectiveness issues at their colleges.

  10. Where are Survey Respondents ? • Of the 20 who responded to our survey: • 11 SACS, 2 NC, 2 NE, 3 MS, 2 NW • 14 of the 20 core team leaders were directly involved in the accreditation process at their college. • 8 are going through or have gone through the accreditation process since becoming an Achieving the Dream college.

  11. Achieving the Dream and Institutional Effectiveness Colleges are reporting that AtD has helped them launch an IE plan at their college ….or has guided or strengthened their IE processes (18 of 20). Currently, all six accrediting agencies mention institutional effectiveness in their criteria. North Central only once - Middle State is throughout the document.

  12. Institutional Effectiveness Defined • Institutional Effectiveness Definition • an ongoing, integrated and systematic set of institutional processes that include planning, the evaluation of programs and services, the identification and measurement of learning outcomes, the use of data and assessment results for decision-making that results in improvements in programs, service and institutional quality.

  13. How AtD is Supporting IE at Colleges Higher profile for IR and use of data generally (9) Policy and budget decisions (7) Helped define and prioritize problems in gatekeeper and developmental courses Matched learning gaps to appropriate teaching strategies Targeted the most appropriate teaching strategies Continued, refined, strengthened or eliminated programs and practices

  14. Planning. . . From the survey Half (10) of the responding colleges have developed a new college plan since becoming involved in Achieving the Dream. Five colleges said they used Achieving the Dream goals and measures as a part of the annual strategic plan.

  15. AtD and Planning AtD influenced colleges to: • Provide focus for annual planning retreats – analyze the data, consider the true state of student success at college • Places focus on reaching existing learning goals • Impetus to modify parts of the strategic plan or realign with AtD • Update college mission and goals – more student focuses, success oriented

  16. The Language of Institutional Effectiveness (not all agencies call it institutional effectiveness) Planning and evaluation processes that are: systematic, comprehensive, broad-based, on-going or continuous, integrated, and appropriate to the institution, involve individuals and groups, short- and long-term, realistic analyses of internal and external opportunities and constraints, use of data necessary to support planning, to improve the quality of education, responding to future challenges and opportunities, to influence resource allocation and to improve its instructional programs, institutional services, and activities, systematic review of institutional mission, goals and outcomes.

  17. The Emphasis on Learning Outcomes • Appears to be the hardest part of accreditation for most colleges. The assessment of learning outcomes needs to: • be clearly stated for each educational program • values teaching and learning • be worthy of the students’ investment • result in continuing improvement in institutional quality • provide evidence of improvement based on analysis assessment results. • be done at various levels (course, program and institutional level)

  18. Are the Goals of Achieving the Dream and the Accrediting Agencies the Same?

  19. The Goals of Achieving the Dream • Achieving the Dream has established a set of performance measures to guide colleges in their work. These include the rates at which students: • successfully complete the courses they take, • advance from developmental to credit-bearing courses, • enroll in and successfully complete initial college-level, or “gatekeeper” courses, • continue enrollment from one semester to the next, • earn degrees and/or certificates

  20. Accrediting Agency Interest in Goal #1 • Successful course completion • All accrediting agencies want institutions to determine what barriers exist for their students, collect and analyze data about student learning to guide program development and service delivery, evaluate programs and services, use the evaluation results to improve programs and services, and finally, observe increases in course completion rates. • Southern (SACS) and New England (NEASC) explicitly address course completion in their standards.

  21. Accrediting Agency Interest in Goal #2 • Advancement from developmental education to credit courses • All accrediting agencies are interested in institutions developing special services, based on analysis of student outcome data, to help students attain the learning outcomes in their courses, including developmental courses. Since developmental courses prepare students to master essential basic skills required for success in college-level courses, analyzing their effectiveness is an essential part of the institutional effectiveness processes required for accreditation. • Northwest (NWCCU) is the only regional agency that cites developmental coursework in its accreditation criteria. Western (WASC) and New England (NEASC) mention student ability levels, and programs and services designed to improve deficiencies.

  22. Accrediting Agency Interest in Goal #3 • Successful gatekeeper course completion • All six agencies are very concerned about student success in general education courses, including gatekeeper courses. Their major concern is not simply with the numbers of students who complete the courses, but with the rates of success based on tracking the progression of cohorts of students over time. The latter is a key focus of Achieving the Dream. • Accrediting agencies also want colleges to measure their students’ learning outcomes to ensure that they are mastering college-level competencies in the gatekeeper and general education courses. Much variation exists among agencies in the detail required to measure student learning outcomes. Southern and North Central give colleges the freedom to define their student learning outcomes. Middle States, New England, Northwestern and Western list specific outcomes the colleges must measure. • SACS and NEASC criteria directly address course completion.

  23. Accrediting Agency Interest in Goal #4 • Term-to-term persistence • All six agencies want colleges to take steps to strengthen course content, classroom strategies, student orientation, and counseling, advising, and other student support services to improve learning and encourage student persistence. • NEASC and Middle States specifically address student persistence.

  24. Accrediting Agency Interest in Goal #5 • Completion of degrees and certificates • All six agencies are interested in whether students attain program outcomes, which can include completion of credentials as well as licensure, employment, and baccalaureate transfer. • NEASC is the sole agency that explicitly mentions attainment and other measures of successful completion in its standards.

  25. The Experiences of Two Achieving the Dream CollegeNorthern Essex in MassachusettsNEASC in Self-study ProcessWestmoreland County in PennsylvaniaMiddle State – Completed Five-year Report

  26. http://betablog.necc.mass.edu/neasc/ NECC Self-Study Blog http://www.necc.mass.edu/irp/planning/neasc.php “Data First”, “S Series”, and other Forms http://www.necc.mass.edu/achievingthedream/datareports.php Achieving the Dream Data Reports

  27. NECC’s 2010 Self-Study Process Member of New England Association of Schools and Colleges – Commission on Institutions of Higher Education (NEASC – CIHE) Self-Study Site Visit in October 2010 Process Began in January 2009

  28. NECC’s 2010 Self-Study Process Appreciative Inquiry StrengthsQuest Process Management

  29. Increased focus on student success • “Data First” Forms • Student Success “E Series” and “S Series” Forms • Institutional Effectiveness Statements

  30. “Data First” Forms • Complete First • Supporting Data for Each Standard

  31. “S Series” Forms • Retention and Graduation Rates • Other Measures of Student Success • Licensure Passage and Job Placement Rates • Completion and Placement Rates for Short-Term Vocational Programs

  32. Institutional Effectiveness • 4.51 The institution’s principal evaluation focus is the quality, integrity, and effectiveness of its academic programs. Evaluation endeavors and systematic assessment are demonstrably effective in the improvement of academic offerings and student learning.

  33. “S Series” Forms • Course Completion • The “Maryland Model” • Supplemental Data Reports

  34. Success: Total Completion(All Students in All Classes Completing with A-C) • Fall 2007 = 69.3% • Fall 2008 = 68.5% • Fall 2009 = 72.5%* * Highest Total Completion Rate Recorded

  35. “S Series” Forms • Course Completion • The “Maryland Model” • Supplemental Data Reports

  36. Success: Retention(Graduated, Transferred, or Returned) • Fall 2007 – 2008 = 66% • Fall 2008 – 2009 = 70% • Fall 2009 – 2010 = ? • 4-Year Goal = TBD

  37. “S Series” Forms • Course Completion • The “Maryland Model” • Supplemental Data Reports

  38. Data Team Reports • Effect of Age on Course Completion Rates for Developmental and Gatekeeper Courses • Effect of Taking Developmental Courses Immediately When Prescribed • Effect of Gender on Course Completion Rates for Developmental and Gatekeeper Courses • Comparison of Supplemental Instruction v. Traditional

  39. Response to Specific Standard Criterion • 4.45 The institution’s approach to understanding student learning focuses on the course, program, and institutional level. Data and other evidence generated through this approach are considered at the appropriate level of focus, with the results being a demonstrable factor in improving the learning opportunities and results for students.

  40. Response to Specific Standard Criterion • A variety of alternative instructional models and interventions have been put in place for math courses in response to Achieving the Dream information regarding low completion rates for math students. Examples include supplemental instruction, a modular section format, self-paced/individualized instruction, accelerated options, and short refresher courses. An inter-departmental math retention team is working on professional development in these areas and on the continuum of skills from developmental through college-level math.

  41. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) • Transition and Developmental Course Completion Rates • Gatekeeper Course Completion Rates • Retention • Degrees and Certificates Conferred • Diversity of Faculty and Staff

  42. Public Disclosure (Standard Ten) • Program Review and Outcomes Assessment • Data Team Reports • “Community Conversations” • Only Mass. college to share CCSSE results

  43. 2005 – A NEW PRESIDENT A New Vision A New Focus on Student Success A Search for Data

  44. Analysis of Baseline Data Only 58 % of the Applicants were given a Placement Test = ACCUPLACER Students who placed into developmental courses were not required to take those courses – it was only recommended The lower the ACCUPLACER score, the less likely a student was to take the course recommended Low numbers of students passed the developmental courses

  45. Nearly 85% of the students who took the ACCUPLACER test, placed into at least one developmental course.

  46. Course Enrollment and Pass rates for ACCUPLACER Tested Students – 2005 2192 new students enrolled, 1289 took ACCUPLACER (58.8%), 120 placed into RDG 050 (9.3%), 67 enrolled in RDG 050 (55.8%), 42 of them earned an A, B or C (63 %) COURSE Placed Enrolled Successful RDG 050 9% 56% 62% RDG 080 42% 66% 74% ENG 030 8% 52% 60% ENG 070 25% 60% 70% ENG 161 67% 85% 66% MTH 050 61% 25% 70% MTH 052 67% 58% 53% MTH 100 20% 58% 55% MTH 157 13% 26% 75%

  47. An ATD Grant Received in 2006 • ATD Year 1 - 2006-2007 was focused on: • Design and implement an integrated developmental education program • Design and implement processes and interventions to enhance achievement of student learning outcomes • Design and implement a “transition to college” intake process with a comprehensive orientation for all first-time students • Collection of data from support strategies already in use

  48. ATD Progress • ATD Year 2 - 2007-2008 was focused on: • The increased use of ACCUPLACER test for applicants • The use of ACCUPLACER scores for placement in developmental courses • Identification of Gatekeeper Courses • The use of Supplemental Instruction and other strategies in more courses • Pilot use of an Orientation Program for entering students

  49. GATEKEEPER COURSES COURSE EnrollmentD, F, W Rate CPT 150Microcomputer Concepts 1,041 26.42 % PSY 160General Psychology 855 25.26 % ENG 161College Writing 856 27.10 % MTH 100Intermediate Algebra 356 47.75 % BIO 171Anatomy & Physiology I 325 42.15 % BUS 120 Math of Business 304 18.75 % MTH 157 College Algebra 165 29.45 % BIO 107 Human Biology 163 39.27 %

More Related