70 likes | 212 Views
The NASPAA Accreditation Site Visit: Deeds and Words. Catherine Horiuchi, DPA Associate Dean, Graduate Management Programs School of Management University of San Francisco 2012 NASPAA Annual Conference Austin TX October 18-20. NASPAA Site Visit March 21-23, 2012.
E N D
The NASPAA Accreditation Site Visit: • Deeds and Words • Catherine Horiuchi, DPA • Associate Dean, Graduate Management Programs • School of Management • University of San Francisco • 2012 NASPAA Annual Conference Austin TX October 18-20
NASPAA Site Visit March 21-23, 2012 • A Singular Event Addressing All Questions Regarding Our SSR, COPRA’s IR, and Our Response to the IR • Preparation was fundamental and began as soon as hosting the site visit was confirmed Precursors • COPRA IR review “all hands” • COPRA liaison contact(s) • Faculty consensus (roles) • Program response to IR • Information gathering, analysis, discussion
How We Prepared • Logistics • Site visit chair contacted (often), arranged SVT travel and lodging, booked workspaces, meeting rooms, snacks, etc. • Limited time so needed to confirm schedule addressed SVT priorities and areas of greatest interest • “deeds not words”: SVT could verify anything, doing more than following up on IR questions • “know and do”: SVT could ask for documentation regarding any competency, not just the one described in SSR (operational definition, collected evidence of learning, analysis of evidence, analysis applied via program change)
Preparations • Expected SVT to ask for confirmation, clarification, evidence that SSR and IR response accurately portray our program • With the new online data entry, no SSR Volumes 1 & 2 • Meetings (faculty, staff, students, administration, board, support svcs) • Dedicated room with binders of anticipated supporting materials • Site visitor flash drives withelectronic copies of • SSR, COPRA IR & Response • Syllabi & CVs
How It Went On The Ground • Glitches and Unexpected Requests • Not many, but none is preferred. • Video conference fizzle • Our report on faculty assignments included much USF-specific data, had to be recast to clearly portray requested info • Requested data confirming students admitted met our admissions criteria, and we had no prepared report or spreadsheet of admits • One critical issue regarding SSR appendices and online system (SSR included a few major appendices rather than “illustrative examples” and “basis of judgment” upload buttons; SVT tried “click here” buttons but nothing there)
Lessons Learned • “NASPAA Accredited” • Make good use of COPRA liaison • Call on institutional supports • Assure and confirm specific data and reports are available to COPRA, SVT • Listen closely, read closely, ask questions • There is no such thing as being over-prepared (schedules, TOCs, checklists) • The goal of the site visit is a solid report; the site visit process is not over until the SVT submits its final report to COPRA