AQIP: Academic Quality Improvement Program Higher Learning Commission-NCA www.aqip.org

1
AQIP Academic Quality Improvement ProgramHigher
Learning Commission-NCA www.aqip.org

• Lynette Olson, Office of the Chancellor,
• Minnesota State Colleges and Universities

2
Presentation Objectives

• Review Value of Accreditation
• Describe Continuous Quality Improvement Approach
  to Accreditation
• Compare AQIP and PEAQ (traditional process)
• Impact for Minnesota State Colleges
  Universities
• Identify needs for further training/development

3
Regional Accreditation

• Associations of peer institutions that provide
  assurance to the public that institutions have
  met agencys requirements and criteria and that
  there are reasonable grounds to believe it will
  continue to do so.
• NCANorth Central Association of Colleges and
  Schools North Central region--19 states, 6
  regions
• HLC--Higher Learning Commission, division of NCA
  HLC/NCA

4
What is the Value of Accreditation?

• Board of Trustees requirement for each Minnesota
  State College and University
• Standard of quality
• Incentive for self improvement
• Basis for decisions on transferability of credits
• Required for students to access financial aid
  (Reauthorization Act, 2004)

5
HLC/NCA Mission Serving the common good by
assuring and advancing quality

• HLC/NCA Values Four Themes

• Future Oriented Organization
• Learning Focused Organization
• Connected Organization
• Distinctive Organization

6
Four Themes Valued

• Future Oriented Organization
• Engages in planning
• Driven by mission
• Understands change
• Learning Focused Organization
• Assessment of learning
• Supports learning
• Creates capacity for learning

7
Four Themes Valued (Cont.)

• Connected Organization
• Serves the common good
• Creates a culture of service
• Collaborative/Partnerships
• Distinctive Organization
• Mission driven
• Welcomes accountability

8
HLC Strategic Priorities

1. Increase focus of accreditation on Quality of
   higher learning
2. Multiple accreditation processes (e.g. AQIP),
   emphasis on institutions own processes of Quality
   Assurance, Quality Improvement, accreditation
   based on integrity of processes and results.
3. Expand HLC services to assure/advance Quality in
   higher learning
4. Share effective practices to promote Quality in
   higher learning

9
PEAQ (Program to Evaluate Advance Quality)

• New Criteria
• Mission and Integrity
• Organization operates with integrity to ensure
  the fulfillment of its mission
• Preparing for the Future
• Allocation of resources planning are
  demonstrated to fulfill its mission
• Student Learning, Effective Teaching
• Organization provides evidence of student
  achievement teaching effectiveness to fulfill
  its mission
• Acquiring, Creating, Applying Knowledge
• Organization promotes a life of learning for its
  faculty, administration, staff and students.
  Social responsibility is consist with mission
• Engagement and Service
• Organization identifies its constituencies and
  serves them in ways both value according to the
  mission
• Report on Operational Indicators

10
PEAQ Program to Evaluate Advance Quality

• Self-study
• Criteria
• Onsite visit-consultant-evaluators
• Review Panel or Readers Review
• Commission acts on accreditation/reaccredidation
  for 5-10 years
• Institution may have a requirement for a focus
  visit or progress report

11
PEAQ Institutions

• Winona State University
• Bemidji State University
• Mn West Community and Technical College
• Central Lakes College
• St Paul College
• St Cloud State University
• Southwest State University
• Anoka Ramsey CC
• Anoka-Hennepin TC
• Century Community Technical College
• Dakota County TC
• Minnesota State University, Mankato

• Fondu Lac CC
• Itasca CC
• Mesabi Range CC
• Vermillion CC
• Hibbing CC
• Normandale CC
• North Hennepin CC
• Pine Technical College
• Mn State Community Technical College
• Northland Community Technical College
• South Central Technical College
• Minnesota State University Moorhead

12
AQIP Members (www.aqip.org)

• Alexandria Technical College
• Lake Superior College
• St. Cloud Technical College
• Rainy River College
• Northwest Technical College Bemidji Campus
• Riverland Community College

• Rochester Community Technical College
• Ridgewater College
• Hennepin Technical College
• Inver Hills Community College
• Minneapolis Technical Community College
• Metro State University
• Minnesota State College Southeast Technical

13
Why AQIP?An Institutional Choice

• Reasons for PEAQ
• Initial accreditation
• Probation
• Institutional reasons
• Wish to establish traditional credibility
• Cultural
• Buy in
• Financial resources
• Governance change
• Leadership change
• Mission

• Reasons for AQIP
• Institutional Reasons
• Culture for change
• Strategic planning initiatives
• Involvement with CQI initiatives
• Baldrige
• CQIN
• Minnesota Quality Award
• Credibility outside education
• Providing CQI training CT/CE
• Leadership

14
What Makes AQIP Different from PEAQ (Traditional
Re-accreditation)

• Focuses on themes, patterns and processes across
  the institution
• Visioning for the future
• Empowers faculty and staff--Conversation Days
• Supports engaging and developing peoples talents
  team oriented

15
A Continuous Improvement Process

• Focuses on Results Not procedures or
  organizational structure
• Goal Orientated Encourages flexible approaches
• Common Vision Fosters understanding and
  communications
• Aligns all Resources Supports innovation
  diversity

16
AQIP Framework

• Nine Criteria
• Ten Values/Principles

17
CriteriaASKS. What Do You Do and How?

• Are you doing the right things that are most
  important in order to achieve your mission and
  goals?
• Are you doing those things well effectively,
  efficiently, in ways that satisfy your customers?

18
AQIP Criteria

• Understanding Students and Stakeholders Needs
• Valuing People
• Leading and Communicating
• Supporting Institutional Operations

• Planning Continuous Improvement
• Building Collaborative Relationships
• Helping Students Learn
• Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives
• Measuring Effectiveness

19
AQIP vs. Baldrige Criteria
20
Guiding Values or Principles The Way You Do It
and Why?

• High Performance Organizations are Built on
  Principles
• Research indicates that common principles
  permeate institutions that have achieved a
  systematic approach to quality
• Principle qualities underlie all of the criteria,
  processes, and services they represent the
  values that AQIP is built on

21
Guiding Values (Principles) for Academic
Improvement

• Focus Mission, vision
• Involvement Broad based, encourages ownership
• Leadership Modeling, values
• Learning Develops everyones potential
• People Invests in its people

• Collaboration Encourages active partnerships
• Agility Responds to change
• Foresight Thinks into the future
• Information Seek and use data to assess
  performance
• Integrity Recognizes and fulfills its
  responsibility

22
AQIP Process

• Prepare
• Assess
• Engage
• Discern
• Commit to Action - AQIP Contract

23
Prepare

• Interest Exploration
• Vital Focus Design Team Training
• Vital Focus Exploration Conversations
• Increase campus involvement
• Build an understanding of AQIP
• Collectively agree on priorities, strategies, and
  action projects
• Create a sense of ownership responsibility for
  culture change

24
Assess

• Constellation Survey-AQIP
• Baldrige Express
• Continuous Quality Improvement Network (CQIN)
• Trailblazer
• Pathfinders

25
Engage

• Results Report
• Constellation AQIP
• All College Conversation Day AQIP
• Conversation Summary Report AQIP

26
Discern

• Complete a Strategy for Action Workbook
• Attend a Strategy Forum-Peer Review
• Select Action Projects
• External Feedback Loop

27
Commit to Action

• AQIP Contract
• Annual ReportsAction Projects
• Systems Portfolioevery 3 years
• Reaffirmation of Accreditationby the 7th
  yearonsite if no HLC visit in last 7 years

28
AQIP Is Evolving.

• Project Pew Grant
• Criteria, Principles
• Process Strategy Forum, Systems Portfolio
• Support Vital Focus, Constellation Day
• Training Facilitators, Design Leaders, Reviewers
• Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA)
  Review, November 2002

29
Operational Indicators (AQIP and Traditional)
Report in 2004

• Demographics
• Student headcount
• Student status FT/PT
• Entering student enrollment
• Faculty, staff, admin, headcount
• Faculty status FT/PT
• Programs
• Number
• Addition/deletion
• Completion rates
• FYE generated Undergrad/grad
• FT/PT faculty
• Instructional cost/FYE

• Financial Strength-public
• Net operating income/deficit
• Chg fund balance/expense
• Expendable assets/debt
• Debt service
• Bond rating
• Scope of Activities
• List of sites-headcount
• Dual enrollment headcount HS
• Distance education degree and certificate
  programsmodality
• Consortia/collaborative arrangements

30
Impact on Minnesota State Colleges and
Universities

• Accountability
• Data collection, dissemination, analysis
• Support for accreditation activities
• Policy

31
Linkage to Accountability Performance Reporting

• Strategic Plan
• Chancellors Work Plan Specific goal to make
  adjustments as necessary to improve efficiency
  and effectiveness
• Performance Indicators

32
Data Collection Analysis

• Annual Report with Operational Indicators
  replaces BIDs
• Web based collection HCL Database
• Accurate data
• Trend data
• Benchmarking dataacross system and with other
  higher ed institutions
• Decisions built on results from the data

33
Office of the Chancellor Support

• Data
• Institutional Portfolio Tool www.template.project.
  mnscu.edu
• Representative
• on site comprehensive visits
• focus visits requested by institutions
• participation in AQIP activities
• Institutional Change Requestsdistance education
• MN Online Accreditation Project
• MnQIP

34
MnQIP Action Projects

• Data and Measures
• Training and Development
• Better Practices

35
Questions

• What training/development do I need now?