Presentation on theme: "Accountability, Accreditation and Institutional Effectiveness Professional Development Training."— Presentation transcript:
Accountability, Accreditation and Institutional Effectiveness Professional Development Training
The Accreditation Process Once Every Ten Years: –SACS (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools) reaffirms colleges and universities for its region: 11 states and those in Latin America States = Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia –Accreditation is important for students wanting course credits to transfer and to receive federal financial aid.
SACS Timeline: In 2002, the Commission on Colleges got rid of the old “must statements” and replaced them with: –Core Requirements –Comprehensive Standards –QEP - Quality Enhancement Plan Our last visit was in Fall 2002 and our next is in the 2013-2014 year. SACS report submitted- February 2013 On-site visit September 24-26
The New Process The accreditation process now includes: –12 Core Requirements (actually 16 with the sub-requirements) –14 Comprehensive Standards (59 sub- categories) –A Quality Enhancement Plan –7 Federal Requirements The new process calls for reviews from three groups: 1.An offsite committee 2.An onsite committee 3.A QEP subgroup of the onsite committee including several invited experts (our choosing)
SACS Requirements and Proposed Changes Core Requirement 2.5 “The institution engages in,,, planning and evaluation processes that (1)incorporate a systematic review of institutional mission, goals and outcomes (2)result in continuing improvement in institutional quality, and (3) demonstrate that the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission (Institutional Effectiveness).” ongoingintegrated institution-wideresearch-based
SACS, continued Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1 states “The institution identifies expected outcomes for its educational programs and its administrative and educational support services; assesses whether it achieves these outcomes; provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of those results.” Comprehensive Standard 3.5.1 states “ The institution identifies college-level competencies within the general education core and provides evidence that graduates have attained those competencies.”
So an institution needs to put in place …. Ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that include: –a systematic review of institutional mission, goals and outcomes –Which results in continuing improvement in institutional quality –And demonstrates that the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission
So an institution needs to put in place …. A list of expected outcomes, Assessment of those outcomes, and Evidence of improvement, based on analysis of those outcome results in each of the following areas: –educational programs (student learning outcomes at the program and individual level) –administrative support services –educational support services Identified college-level general education competencies (based on best practices in assessment) and provide evidence that graduates have attained them
But Why? Are we doing this only because of SACS? Shouldn’t we periodically take a serious look at our students? Are they learning? Who is learning best? Are they achieving the outcomes we expected? Should we make changes in programs and services? Do we need more in-depth services? Do we need a new curriculum or a change in methodology? Our focus should be on learning and improving, not our assessment processes.
A New Eight-step Process for SACS Accreditation 1.COC staff conducts an orientation for the college’s Leadership Team. 2.The institution prepares and submits a compliance certification along with appropriate supporting documentation 3.The off-site committee reviews the compliance certification. The off-site committee prepares a report for each institution. This committee of peers goes to Atlanta the first week of June each year (several hundred) and multiple separate committees review five colleges each.
A new eight step process 4.The commission staff orally communicates to the institution a summary of the report prepared by the off-site committee. The college may choose to submit a focused report. The onsite committee receives copies of both reports. 5.The institution submits its QEP to the commission and the on-site committee (4-6 weeks before the onsite visit).
A new eight step process 6.The onsite committee visits the college to review areas of non-compliance, any other areas of concern and to determine the acceptability of the QEP. The onsite committee submits a report to COC. 7.The college prepares a response to the onsite committee report and submits it to the commission. 8.The commission reviews the findings included in the report of the onsite committee and the college’s response and takes action on the institution’s reaffirmation.
The Process While some at the college will be working on the focused reports, another group will be working on the QEP. So let’s discuss the QEP
What is it? The QEP is a carefully designed and focused course of action that addresses one or more critical issues related to enhancing student learning. The selected topic should complement what the institution is already doing and be incorporated into its ongoing planning and evaluation process.
The QEP It is “forward-looking” or “future oriented” and thus transforms the process into an ongoing activity rather than an episodic event (not a boutique program). The overall goal should be to help the institution create a plan to increase the effectiveness of some aspect of its educational program relating to student learning.
The QEP At the time it is submitted to the COC, it is a plan that launches a process that can move the institution into a future characterized by creative, engaging and meaningful learning experiences for students. Student learning may include: –changes in students’ knowledge, skills, behaviors and/or values –that may be attributable to their college experience.
Sample Topics Enhancing the academic climate for student learning Strengthening the general studies curriculum Developing creative approaches to experiential learning Enhancing critical thinking skills Introducing innovative teaching and learning strategies Increasing student engagement in learning Exploring imaginative ways to use technology in the classroom ALL MUST BE CLEARLY LINKED TO IMPROVING STUDENT LEARNING!
QEP Update... Where are we now? selection committee formed spring 2011 QEP themes identified : Developmental EducationCareer Readiness Online Courses Information Literacy First Year Experience Highest Enrollment courses Survey to employees, students, community to gather data on topics Themes narrowed, call for white papers summer 2011 Topic chosen for CPCC: First Year Students-creating ways to help first year students succeed
QEP Update...Where are we now? Upcoming timeline: QEP will be submitted- July 2013 QEP pilot- September 2013 Pilot of QEP must be done before expanding QEP to entire college
Institutional Effectiveness at CPCC Our individual Role in Accreditation
The Process at CPCC The Institutional Effectiveness Plan is a four-pronged approach: 1.Annual goal setting 2.Annual program review 3.The assessment of general education 4.The College’s annual assessment plan
Annual Goal Setting The College establishes strategic goals through the strategic planning process (Board and Cabinet approve every fall) Individual units set performance objectives to support the College’s goals in the Spring Mid-year and end-of-year progress reports are made (December and May) The Institutional Effectiveness Report is written in the Summer and distributed at the Fall Forum
Annual Program Review All College units are reviewed –All instructional programs (a portion each year over a five year cycle) –All Administrative Services units, Enrollment and Student Services units and units reporting to the President’s Office (over a three year cycle) Completed program reviews go to the Vice President of each unit; Results are reported to their councils, the Cabinet and then college-wide –Needs and future issues are identified –Implications for planning and budgeting are addressed One year follow-ups are completed (closing the loop)
General Education Goals A General Education Committee revised the goals in 2000-2001 and created an assessment process for the College In order to measure general education goals, a portfolio is created each year that includes: –Definitions of competencies by general education area –Learning outcome targets –Sample works –A full report by each individual general education area
College’s Assessment Program Each year the following surveys/reports are done and reported to the college community: –Graduate Follow-up Survey –Faculty-staff Survey –Current Student Survey (curriculum, literacy and CCE) –Enhanced Accountability Report –Program Review Surveys –Student Opinion Surveys
Accountability Measures for 2011-2012 Report for Central Piedmont Community College
Mandate for Accountability Senate Bill1366, Section 10.5 –The General Assembly finds that the current annual program review standards are not adequate to ensure that programs are meeting the needs of students, employers, and the general public; therefore, the State Board of Community Colleges shall review the current standard to ensure a higher degree of program accountability and shall establish appropriate levels of performance for each measure based on sound methodological practices.
Performance Measures- Old vs. New Old change Next Year 1progress of Basic Skills students replaced w/ 1 & 2 1 2 separate measures, 1 & 2: progress of Basic Skills students 2pass rate for licensure and certification exams same, but #7 2GED diploma rate (new) 3good standing of 4 year transfer students same, but #8 3success of developmental students in college-level English 4pass rate in developmental courses eliminated 4success of developmental students in college-level math 5success of developmental students in college courses replaced w/ 3 & 4 5first year progression (new) 6student satisfaction with programs eliminated 6persistence of curriculum students 7 same, but #6 7pass rate for licensure and certification exams 8satisfaction of business/industry eliminated 8good standing of 4 year transfer students
2011-2012 2011-2012 New Process for NC Accountability Measures 8 measures GOALBASELINEAll NC Community College’s data is combined and the system office has created a GOAL and a BASELINE benchmark. This process compares how we measure to other colleges.
A. Basic Skills Student Progress Benchmark: Percentage of students who progress as defined by an educational functioning level. CPCC above college mean; below goal 49.8%- CPCC above college mean; below goal ( (2,356 students out of 4,730 progressed) System Goal 51.2% System Baseline 20.6% College Mean 41.0% System Totals 41.5%
B. GED Diploma Passing Rate Benchmark: Percentage of students taking at least one GED test during a program year who receive a GED diploma during the program year. 75.1%- CPCC above college mean; below goal 75.1%- CPCC above college mean; below goal (289 students out of 385 passed GED test) System Goal 82.0% System Baseline 49.3% College Mean 71.1% System Totals 69.6%
C. Developmental Student Success Rate in College-Level English Courses Benchmark: Percentage of previous developmental English and/or reading students who successfully complete a credit English course with a grade of “P”, “C” or better upon the first attempt. GOAL CPCC met the GOAL- 77.8% (1,457 students out of 1,872 had a C or better or “P” upon first attempt) System Goal 74.9% System Baseline 45.2% College Mean 63.7% System Totals 64.5%
D. Developmental Student Success Rate in College-Level Math Courses Benchmark: Percentage of previous developmental math students who successfully complete a credit math course with a “C” or better upon the first attempt. CPCC above college mean; below goal 71.5%- CPCC above college mean; below goal (993 students out of 1,388 had a “C “ or better upon first attempt.) System Goal 75.4% System Baseline 47.5% College Mean 64.8% System Totals 64.1%
E. First Year Progression Benchmark: Percentage of first-time fall credential-seeking students attempting at least twelve hours within their first academic year who successfully complete (“P”, “C” or better) at least twelve of those hours 70.3%- CPCC above college mean; below goal System Goal 74.6% System Baseline 53.2% College Mean 67.7% System Totals 67.5%
F. Curriculum Completion Benchmark: Percentage of first-time fall credential-seeking students who graduate, transfer, or are still enrolled with 36 hours after six years 36.7% - CPCC Above Baseline, Below Mean System Goal 45.6% System Baseline 28.6% College Mean 41.6% System Totals 41.1%
G. Licensure & Certification Passing Rate Description: Aggregate institutional passing rate of first time test-takers on licensure and certification exams. Exams included in this measure are state mandated exams which candidates must pass before becoming active practitioners. GOAL CPCC met the GOAL (92.3%) System Goal 91.7% System Baseline 71.0% College Mean85.0% System Totals86.9%
G. Passing Rates for State Licensure Exams 2011-2012
H. Performance of 2010-2011 College Transfer Students Benchmark: Among community college associate degree completers and those who have completed 30 or more credit hours who transfer to a four-year university or college, the percentage who earn a GPA of 2.00 or better after two consecutive semesters within the academic year at the transfer institution. –86.9% of associate degree CPCC transfer students were in good academic standing. (2.0 GPA or better) –86% of those with 30+ hours (579) were in good academic standing.
H. Performance of 2010-2011 College Transfer Students CPCC above college mean; below goal 86.9%- CPCC above college mean; below goal System Goal 93.6% System Baseline 71.2% College Mean86.7% System Totals87.6%
Overall Success by CPCC Accountability Measures for 2011-12 A.Basic Skills Student Progress- above mean; below goal B.GED Diploma Passing Rate- above mean; below goal C.Developmental Student Success Rate in College-Level English Courses- met Goal D.Developmental Student Success Rate in College-Level Math Courses- above mean; below goal E.First Year Progression -above mean; below goal F.Curriculum Completion- above baseline; below mean G.Licensure & Certification Passing Rate- met Goal H.Performance of College Transfer Students- above mean; below goal