AQIP Project Status Update

1. AQIP Project Status Update AQIP Steering Committee Meeting August 26, 2011

2. Project Timeline – Portfolio Development • Stakeholder Review • Submit Portfolio Feb-April ’11 May-July ’11 Aug-Dec ‘11 Jan ’12 Feb-April ’12 May ’12

3. Current Status – Portfolio Development • Phase I – Gap Analysis <COMPLETED> • Identification of critical gaps • O’s and OO’s from 2008 Systems Appraisal • Review HOT Teams Top 13 (critical issues) and Category Reports • Phase II – Standards Analysis <IN PROCESS> Identification – Exploration – Documentation • build upon gap analysis and expand focus to include all category standards • identify process owners • request information from process owners (AQIP Category Worksheet) • select activities to highlight in the portfolio (strengths) • review current Action Projects

4. Current Status – Portfolio Development Category 3 Category 7 I Category 9 Category 4 Category 5 I Category 6 Category 8 I Category 1 Category 2 I = Institutional issues need to be addressed to move forward

5. Institutional Challenges • Changes in leadership • Institutional commitment to AQIP and continuous improvement principles • Lack of clearly defined decision making structure • Lack of strategic plan and concurrent strategic planning process • Limited use of data in decision-making • Lack of process documentation • Limited faculty participation • Continued changes in leadership…

6. Institutional Challenges • Changes in leadership • Continued changes in leadership… • Departure of Dr. Spencer and appointment of Interim President Tacha • Changes in Board of Trustees • Departure of Dr. Brown, AVP Institutional Resources • Change in ELT membership • Departure of Mr. Jones, VP Administrative Services • Departure of Linda Baker, Category 5 Liaison • Departure of David Penrose, Category 5 Liaison

7. Institutional Challenges • Institutional commitment to AQIP, continuous improvement principles • Lack of clearly defined decision making structure • Lack of strategic plan and concurrent strategic planning process • Limited of use of data in decision-making • Meeting with ELT, SPOT members, and AQIP Category Teams 5, 7 and 8 took place on June 21 to begin to address the critical issues outlined in the 5/20/11 AQIP update provided to ELT (organizational structure, use of data in decision making).    • A SPOT Tactical Team has been charged to work with the TSO to conduct research and make recommendations to this larger group regarding organizational structure and decision making.  This report is due in September. • ELT has asked that Dr. Hruska and Dr. Miller facilitate a Board Work Session on our AQIP portfolio development work.

8. Institutional Challenges • Lack of process documentation • Institutions accomplish work through the processes they use • Process improvements are central to achieving performance improvements • Processes that are formal, prescribed, and documented are more likely to be improved upon • Formalized processes tend to produce consistent results

9. Establishing and Maintaining Momentum • Re-engage team members • Reminder of the critical importance of the accreditation process and status • Renewed commitment and focus After all… the clock is ticking, and late work is not accepted!

10. Next Steering Committee Task Consideration of Criteria of Accreditation and Minimum Expectations

11. Five Criteria for Accreditation • Criteria (fundamental requirements) • Core Components (focal areas) • Sub-components (further delineate expectations) • “Overlay” of Minimum Expectations in 6 areas (Sep 2010) • Current Criteria • Criterion One: Mission and Integrity • Criterion Two: Preparing for the Future • Criterion Three: Student Learning and Effective Teaching • Criterion Four: Acquisition, Discovery, and Application of Knowledge • Criterion Five: Engagement and Service

12. The Criteria for Accreditation seek evidence of: Improvement AspirationBest Practices The Commission will grant or continue (with or without conditions or sanctions), deny, or withdraw accreditation based on the outcome of peer review.

13. Commission Actions and Sanctions • Progress reports are used to track how an institution is progressing in coping with certain changes or challenges, or receive evidence that plans came to fruition. • Monitoring reports are used in situations requiring careful ongoing attention. The Commission may call for additional reports, require a focused visit, or, following guidance from the team, move forward the date of the next comprehensive evaluation. • Contingency reports are used when HLC anticipates an event that could change conditions that would have a significant effect on the organization. • Commission Sanctions • An institution is Placed on Notice if it is found to be pursuing a course of action that could result in its being unable to meet one or more Criteria for Accreditation. • Probation signifies that conditions exist at an accredited institution that endanger its ability to meet one or more of the Commission’s Criteria for Accreditation.

14. HLC Accreditation Programs/Models • PEAQ - the Program to Evaluate and Advance Quality • AQIP - the Academic Quality Improvement Program • Pathways - a new model that will replace PEAQ in 2012-13 • Standard Pathway • AQIP Pathway • Open Pathway • San Juan College adopted AQIP as its model for reaffirming its accreditation in November 2000

15. Criteria Revision Initiative

16. Criteria Revision Initiative • Good practice to review criteria every 5 years • Greater specificity required by the US Dept of ED (spring 2010) • Minimum Expectations - articulations of “tacit understandings” within higher education • Alpha version reviewed at Annual Conference in April, 2011 • Reorganization of the 5 Criteria • Revision of Core Components • Addition of Sub-Components • Introduction of Minimum Expectations • Beta version released for review – July 15, 2011 • Reorganization of the 5 Criteria • Revision, Deletion, and Addition of: • Core Components • Sub-components • Minimum Expectations (now organized by the Criteria)

17. Evolution of the Criteria for Accreditation

18. Criteria Revision Initiative • Final version released for review @ Nov-Dec 2011 • Seven Regional Forums (summer 2011) • Commission Board Review (November 2011) • Approval by Commission Board @ February 2012 • Effective November 2012 for AQIP institutions submitting portfolios • Effective January 1, 2013 for Change Requests

19. Criteria Revision Initiative – Articulation of Core Values • Focus on student learning • Education as a public purpose • Education for a diverse, technological, globally connected world • A culture of continuous improvement • Evidence-based institutional learning and self-presentation • Integrity, transparency, and ethical behavior or practice • Governance for the well-being of the institution and its stakeholders • Planning and management of resources to ensure institutional sustainability • Mission-centered evaluation • Accreditation through peer review

20. Criteria Revision Initiative – Summary • More specificity: • Additional Core Components • Additional Sub-Components • Significant expansion of the number of Minimum Expectations articulated • Institutions are NOT required to directly address these minima • A tool for Peer Reviewers when a concern arises • Effective November 2012 for AQIP institutions submitting portfolios • SJC’s 2012 portfolio will address the CURRENT Criteria

21. Providing Evidence that SJC Meets all Criteria and all of the Core Components • The Portfolio must contain an Index to the Evidence for the Criteria • The handout provides a visual of the AQIP standards that the 2007 Portfolio used to address specific Core Components of the Criteria • Category teams should carefully review these Core Components, as well as the associated Minimum Expectations • The Steering Committee will be responsible for creating the 2012 Index against the current Core Components • The Steering Committee will be responsible for reviewing the Minimum Expectations associated with the Criteria