NEASC Reaccreditation and Planning

1. NEASC Reaccreditation and Planning CPARC September 22, 2017

2. Reaccreditation and Planning: NEASC • Conducted by the Commission on Higher Education, New England Association of Schools and Colleges • One of the seven regional accrediting bodies recognized by the federal government • Independent, membership organization… • …but acts on behalf of the federal government, and under increasing pressure to be more prescriptive and more closely aligned with federal priorities

3. Reaccreditation and Planning: NEASC • Comprehensive review every ten years • Likely outcomes • We will not flunk • Accreditation continued for a ten-year period • Identification of issues to be watched • Specific issues requiring substantive progress assessment at our five-year mid-term review • Attention on the part of the press, public, and stakeholders

4. Reaccreditation and Planning: NEASC • NEASC major focus areas • Sustainable financial strategy • Assessment and planning • Student outcomes assessment • Increasingly important for all colleges and universities • Central to our own strategy

5. Reaccreditation and Planning • Demonstrate a sustainable financial strategy • Build understanding of our financial situation and our choices and strategies • Build confidence in our stewardship and resourcefulness • Make the case for additional investment from taxpayers, students and families, state and federal agencies, and donors • Become increasingly effective in aligning resources with strategic priorities

6. Reaccreditation and Planning • Move to the next level in planning, assessment and improvement • Review and refresh the campus’s strategic plan • Deepen the “culture of evidence” • Become increasingly effective in aligning resources with strategic priorities

7. Reaccreditation and Planning • Demonstrate leadership in using evidence to improve the student experience • The campus is already in a strong position with respect to indirect evidence (student satisfaction, student self-report, etc.) • Identify the most important questions and use existing and expanded indirect and direct evidence more systematically

8. 2018 NEASC Self Study • Respond to all standards • Nine standards • 184 sub-standards • 100 pages • Plus data forms, appendices • Engage the community • CPARC to serve as steering committee • Numerous working groups and subcommittees • Integrated with strategic plan review and refresh

9. 2018 NEASC Self Study • Mission and Purpose • Planning and Evaluation • Organization and Governance • Academic Program • Students • Teaching, Learning and Scholarship • Institutional Resources • Educational Effectiveness • Integrity, Transparency and Public Disclosure

10. Examples of NEASC Standards Standard 6: Teaching, Learning and Scholarship 6.4 The institution employs an open and orderly process for recruiting and appointing its faculty… 6.10Faculty are demonstrably effective in carrying out their assigned responsibilities… Standard 4: Academic Program 4.7 The institution undertakes academic planning and evaluation as part of its overall planning and evaluation to enhance the achievement of institutional mission and program objectives…. 4.15 Graduates successfully completing an undergraduate program demonstrate competence in written and oral communication in English; the ability for scientific and quantitative reasoning, for critical analysis and logical thinking; and the capability for continuing learning… Standard 8: Educational Effectiveness 8.3  Assessment of learning is based on verifiable statements of what students are expected to gain, achieve, demonstrate, or know… 8.5  The institution uses a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods and direct and indirect measures to understand the experiences and learning outcomes of its students…

11. Approach for Self Study Development NEASC Standards • Compliance • Federal definition of a student credit hour • Identity verification for online students • Financial statement, audit standards 2009 Self Study Review and update as needed 2018 Self Study • Substantive • Faculty are demon-strably effective... • Student success is measured and results used to improve • Multi-year financial planning is realistic 2017 Strategic Plan Progress and Refresh Unit Plan refresh

12. Developing the Self Study • Description, Appraisal, Projection for Campus Priorities • Draw from and elaborate on the revised campus plan • Iterative with Working Groups • Compliance • Work with technical groups and appropriate staff

13. Strategic Plan “Refresh” — What is it? • Opportunity to take stock of changes over the past 4-5 years • In our situation • Progress resulting from earlier planning • Reality check, not starting from scratch • Confirm/Revise campus-level priorities • Changes needed in direction, focus • Emerging issues • Results in updated campus-level plan/priorities

14. Strategic Plan “Refresh” — What is it? • Engage campus leadership in framing the issues • CLC-Deans, Academic department heads: begun in leadership retreats • A&S leaders: TBD • Governance groups: September • CPARC: Ongoing • Outcomes • Draft for campus discussion: mid-November • Updated campus-level plan/priorities: end of semester

15. Strategic Plan “Refresh” — What is it? • Step One: Understanding our Situation • Are original assumptions still valid? • Situation analysis with campus leaders • Step Two: Priorities for Action • Does the plan still fit? • Working Groups • Diversity • Undergraduate Experience • Graduate Education • Resources

16. Reaccreditation and Planning • Demonstrate leadership in using evidence to improve the student experience • Central to NEASC and other external expectations • Central to campus priorities (Destination of Choice)

17. E-Series Forms: Making Assessment More Explicit Option E1: Part a. Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators

18. Student Outcomes Assessment/Student Experience • Educational Effectiveness Plan (EEP) • Eliminate redundancy and sense of busy work • Knit together huge amount of work already done • Focus effort every two or three years • Do it once, use it often

19. Student Outcomes Assessment/Student Experience Incorporate NEASC framework Revise P&B guidelines Frame unit plan refresh around EEP framework Redraft AQAD guidelines and procedures

20. Role of CPARC • CPARC has been asked to serve as the campus Steering Committee for the reaccreditation process • Promote open, accountable process • Provide advice and feedback on process and substance • Ensure integration of strategic plan into Self Study • CPARC charge to review the implementation of the annual budget process • CPARC charge to encourage efforts to pursue campus-wide priorities

21. Charge (slide from May 4, 2017 Faculty Senate presentation) Consistent with Faculty Senate motion 31-16 (May 5, 2016), the Committee will assume certain responsibilities as successor to JTFSO and JTFRA: • Undertaking, through a subcommittee established for this purpose, input on and review of the implementation of the annual budget process, including preparation of the FY18 budget, with a view to ensuring that the resource allocation system serves the purposes of aligning resources with values and goals, transparency, and consultation, and with recommending adjustments as needed; • Fully integrating the work of the Joint Subcommittee on Administrative Costs and Services no later than the end of the Fall 2016 semester; • Encouraging ongoing efforts to pursue campus-wide priorities, including, but not limited to, the campus’s Diversity Plan, plans for Internationalization, and an Outreach and Engagement Strategy.

22. Campus Budget Planning Process

23. Next Steps for CPARC (from May 4, 2017 Faculty Senate presentation) • “Look back” How did budget process align with strategic priorities and campus values? • “Look forward” Use feedback to recommend changes to the process • Advise on the preparation for the NEASC re-accreditation self-study including re-visiting campus strategic priorities • Continue discussion with groups engaged in other strategic planning

24. CPARC Planning Estimated Timeline Sept/Oct Nov/Dec January Feb 2018 • Spring18 • Summer18 Review Draft Description, Appraisal, Projection: Compliance Review Draft Description, Appraisal, Projection: Strategic NEASC Self-Study Review final drafts Situation Assessment, Review Priorities, Review WG Strategic Plan Refresh Review Revised SP Refresh Review Draft SP Refresh FY19 Planning and Budget Lookback and Look forward Chairs feedback

25. Looking Back…

26. Looking Back…

27. Looking Back…

28. Looking Ahead… • Recommendations for FY19 Planning and Budget process • Recommendations for Future P&B processes • Recommendations for unit plan refresh in Y18-19

29. Student Outcomes Assessment/Student Experience

30. Outcome: Group Work (direct evidence) Outcome: Group Work (direct evidence) Process: Teaching (satisfaction) Process: Teaching (satisfaction) ! ! Process: Advising (satisfaction) Process: Advising (satisfaction) Outcome: Subject Matter (direct evidence) Outcome: Subject Matter (direct evidence) Inputs Resources or conditions feeding into the process Outcome: Group Work (self-report) Outcome: Group Work (self-report) Outcome: Group Work (self-report) Output: Student Retention (observation) Output: Student Retention (observation) Outcome: Critical Thinking (direct evidence) Outcome: Critical Thinking (direct evidence) Output: Graduation Rate (observation) Output: Graduation Rate (observation) Process: Faculty Interaction (satisfaction) Process: Faculty Interaction (satisfaction) Outcome: Subject Matter (self-report) Outcome: Subject Matter (self-report) Outcome: Subject Matter (self-report) Outcomes What happened in terms of objectives? Outcome: General Experience (satisfaction) Outcome: General Experience (satisfaction) ! Outcome: Critical Thinking (self-report) Outcome: Critical Thinking (self-report) Outcome: Critical Thinking (self-report) Output: Persistence in Major (observation) Output: Persistence in Major (observation) Input: High School GPA (observation) Input: High School GPA (observation) Outputs Products of the process Input: Class Size (observation) Input: Class Size (observation) Outcome: Writing (self-report) Outcome: Writing (self-report) Outcome: Quantitative Analysis (direct evidence) Outcome: Quantitative Analysis (direct evidence) Outcome: Writing (self-report) Outcome: Quantitative Analysis (self-report) Outcome: Quantitative Analysis (self-report) Outcome: Quantitative Analysis (self-report) Outcome: Writing (direct evidence) Outcome: Writing (direct evidence) Processes What we do Output: Time to Degree (observation) Output: Time to Degree (observation) Outcome: Problem Solving (self-report) Outcome: Problem Solving (self-report) Process: Career Preparation (satisfaction) Process: Career Preparation (satisfaction) Outcome: Problem Solving (self-report) ! Outcome: Problem Solving (direct evidence) Outcome: Problem Solving (direct evidence) Output: Career Achievement (observation) Output: Career Achievement (observation) Output: Further Education (observation) Output: Further Education (observation)

31. Outcome: Group Work (direct evidence) Process: Teaching (satisfaction) ! Outcome: Subject Matter (direct evidence) 3 Outcome: Subject Matter (direct evidence) Outcome: Critical Thinking (direct evidence) Outcome: Quantitative Analysis (direct evidence) Outcome: Writing (direct evidence) Outcome: Problem Solving (direct evidence)

32. Outcome: Group Work (direct evidence) Outcome: Subject Matter (direct evidence) Outcome: Critical Thinking (direct evidence) Outcome: Critical Thinking (direct evidence) ! Outcome: Critical Thinking (self-report) 3 Outcome: Quantitative Analysis (direct evidence) Outcome: Writing (direct evidence) Outcome: Problem Solving (direct evidence)

33. Outcome: Group Work (direct evidence) Outcome: Subject Matter (direct evidence) Outcome: Critical Thinking (direct evidence) Input: Class Size (observation) ! Outcome: Quantitative Analysis (direct evidence) Outcome: Quantitative Analysis (direct evidence) 3 Outcome: Writing (direct evidence) Outcome: Problem Solving (direct evidence)