1 / 21

Managing to Uncertainty “Where Do We Go From Here?”

Managing to Uncertainty “Where Do We Go From Here?”. Paper Presentation Southern University at Shreveport Faculty/Staff Institute Fall ‘06 August 21, 2006. Mr Martin B. Fortner, Jr.

laken
Download Presentation

Managing to Uncertainty “Where Do We Go From Here?”

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. Managing to Uncertainty“Where Do We Go From Here?” Paper Presentation Southern University at Shreveport Faculty/Staff Institute Fall ‘06 August 21, 2006 Mr Martin B. Fortner, Jr. Director/SACS Laision Planning, Assessment & Research Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06

  2. SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “Self Regulation” Philosophy (1) Self-Regulation through Accreditation Embodies a Traditional U.S. Philosophy That a Free People Can and Ought to Govern Themselves Through a Representative, Flexible, and Responsive System. (2) Emphasizing Processes and Resulting Outcomes, Accreditation Relies on Integrity, Thoughtful and Principled Judgment, Rigorous Application of Requirements, and a Context of Trust. Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06

  3. SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “Self Regulation” Philosophy (3) Based on Reasoned Judgment, the Process Stimulates Evaluation and Improvement, While Providing a Means of Continuing Accountability to Constituents and the Public. (4) The COC Expects Institutions to Dedicate Themselves to Enhancing the Quality of the Programs & Services Within The Context of Their Mission, Resources, and Capacities, and to Create an Environment in Which Teaching, Public Service, Research and Learning Occur. Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06

  4. Principles of Accreditation “Foundations for Quality Enhancement” Criteria for Accreditation Principles & Philosophy of Accreditation Core Requirements (12) Comprehensive Standards (53) Federal Mandates (8) Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06

  5. Principles of Accreditation “Foundations for Quality Enhancement” Criteria for Accreditation Core Requirements: Establishes “Entry” Level Requirements For an Institution Seeking Continued Accreditation. Institutions Must Demonstrate Compliance With all Twelve Requirements. Core Requirement 12: The Institution Has Developed an Acceptable Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) and Demonstrates The Plan Is Part of An Ongoing Planning and Evaluation Process. Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06

  6. Principles of Accreditation “Foundations for Quality Enhancement” The Quality Enhancement Plan The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) is a Carefully designed and Focused Course of Action Designed to Improve Student Learning Quality and Institutional Credibility. The Plan Must be Implemented Over a Time Period and Demonstrating The Following: -Planning - Implementation - Evaluation - Recommendations - Reporting - Communication - Inclusiveness - Collaborations FORTNER/LITTLE/ AIR/ 02

  7. Principles of Accreditation “Foundations for Quality Enhancement” SACS Deliverables Compliance Certification – Documents Our Response to -Core Requirements (11) - Comprehensive Standards (53) - Federal Mandates (8) Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) – Documents SUSLA’s Response to Core Requirement 12 Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06

  8. Principles of Accreditation “Foundations for Quality Enhancement” • Paradigm For SUSLA QEP Development • Environmental Scan • Assessment of Student Learning • Definition of Product • Core Values • Value Added • Action for Change (Quality Emphasis) Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06

  9. SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “Institutional Effectiveness” Strategic Planning / Vision 2020:Vibrant Balanced Economy With a Well-Educated Workforce & Improved Life Quality. Institutional Operational Plans:Establish Annual Performance Targets and Reporting Strategic Goal Attainment Activities. Institutional Effectiveness Plans: Establish Annual Performance Targets For Organizational Units SACS/QEP(s):Linking Institutional Units Into the Strategic Planning/Reporting & Reaffirmation Process. Performance Budgeting:Cost Maximization & Resource Utilization. Emphasis: Cost Avoidance, Cost Liabilities & Cost Effectiveness. Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06

  10. SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “Establishing Accountability” • Five Levels of Accountability 1. Policy AccountabilitySelection of policies pursued/rejected. 2. Program Accountability * Goal achievement. 3. Performance Accountability * Efficient operations. 4. Process Accountability * Using adequate process, procedures, or measures in performing actions required. 5. Probity/Legal Accountability * Spending funds in accordance with approved budget and legal requirements. Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06

  11. SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation“Data Driven Assessments” Core Data Systems Statewide Student Profile System /Explorer IPEDS Performance Based Budget Planning & Reporting Enhanced University Assessment Capability Perception Based Surveys Knowledge, Skills & Abilities ( Pedagogy) Development of Core Indicators/SEIS Outcome Assessment (Under Construction) Quality of Academic Experience Post Baccalaureate Specialization Employment Earnings Evaluations Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06

  12. SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation“Performance Reporting” QEP Reporting: Performance/Process Accountability Criteria: Measure of service accomplishments (output and outcome indicators) Measures relating service efforts to service accomplishments (efficiency and cost-outcome indicators) Explanatory Information (Data Quality Measurements) Relevance Timeliness Understandability Consistency Comparability * Reliability PAR ‘06

  13. SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “Quality Enhancement Framework” Student Learning Outcomes Student Learning Outcomes Reflect Changes in Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes, and/or Values Attributed to the Collegiate Experience. Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06

  14. SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “ QEP Topic Selection” • Core Requirements • SLO Originating From IE Process • Inclusiveness • Topic Selection-Data Driven • Organizational Buy In (Faculty/Stakeholders) • Within Institutional Resource Capability • Measurable Impact On Student Learning PAR ‘06

  15. SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “ QEP Topic Selection” • Performance/Process Variables Affecting SLO • Increase Licensure Pass Rates • Improve Student Writing • Enhance Course Relevancy • Improve Parking • Increase Salaries • Shorten Registration Process Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06

  16. SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “ QEP Topic Selection” • Indirect Relationship to SLO • Improve Technology Access • Enhance Library Holdings • Enhance Faculty Advisement • Increase Student Retention • Increase Graduation Rates • Increase Completer Earnings Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06

  17. SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “ QEP Topic Selection” • Demonstrate Evidence • Development of Enhancement Process • Inclusiveness • Topic Selection & Related Issues • Generated Results • Measurable Process Improvements Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06

  18. SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “ QE Collaborative Model” Review Area: Student Registration 1. Strategic Goal: Student Access/Enrollment 2. Review Context: Reporting Integrity 3. Program Area: Enrollment Mgt./Ac. Affairs 4. Benchmarks: Statewide Student Profile Sys. 5. Govt. Oversight: BOR,OPB,OLA & Federal 6. SACS Standards: 2.5, 2.11.1/3.10.1-3.10.5 Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06

  19. SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “ QE Collaborative Model” Organizational Units: Problem Resolution Assessment of Process Variables Pre-Enrollment Trends Inter-organization Coordination Class Enrollment Trends Financial Aid Eligibility Class Withdrawal/Acquisition Optimal Class Purging Payment Verification Status Advisor Certification Mandated Student Census Lockdown 14/7 Post SSPS Adjustments Enrollment Management Policies/Procedures - - - - - - - - - - - - Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06

  20. SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “ QE Collaborative Model” Develop Quality Initiatives 1. Proactive Pre-Registration Initiatives 2. Strengthening IE Planning Process 3. Involvement of Internal Auditor 4. Enhancing Policies/Procedures 5. Continued Process Improvement Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06

  21. Can We Achieve Reaffirmation ?“Davidian Fineness” Communication Cooperation Trust Mutual Respect “A Willingness to Change” PAR ‘06

More Related