Assessment and Accreditation Deborah Moeckel Campus Senior Staff Orientation Albany, NY November 17, 2014

Campuses expected to meet or exceed MSCHE’s standards by assessing: general education (based on common SUNY SLOs) academic programs at all levels (on a 5-7 year cycle, or with programmatic accreditation) institutional effectiveness. 2 SUNY Assessment Policy

3

ONE-STOP REFERENCE 1.SUNY Assessment Policies and Procedures a)Gen ed SLOs and guidelines b) GEAR rubrics 2.Faculty Senate Guide to Program Assessment 3.Resources on College Readiness Assessments in New York State 4.Selected Other Assessment Resources 4

5

ONE-STOP REFERENCE 1.Schedule of SUNY Campuses’ MSCHE Activities 2.SUNY Statement on Governance for Campus Use 3.Statement on GASB 45 4.Certification Statements for SUNY Campuses 5.Links to Resources on the MSCHE website a)HEOA compliance info 6

Campus Assessment Contacts (STATE-OPERATED CAMPUSES, INSTANT) (COMMUNITY COLLEGES, INSTANT) (ALL CAMPUSES, WEEKLY DIGEST) Campus Accreditation Liaison Officers (STATE-OPERATED CAMPUSES, INSTANT) (COMMUNITY COLLEGES, INSTANT) (ALL CAMPUSES, INSTANT) SUNY Listservs 7

SUNY Council on Assessment (SCoA) Enhances the assessment of institutional effectiveness and student learning by building, leading, and supporting a SUNY-wide assessment community that fosters collaboration, reduces duplication of effort and provides guidance and resources to campuses Plans and leads professional development opportunities for faculty, staff and administrators in the area of assessment Meets in January and June. 8

Assessment Network of New York (ANNY) Founded in 2010, over 200 members by fall 2011, more than 60% from SUNY Created to stimulate dialogue and the exchange of ideas related to assessment across MSCHE-accredited institutions and provide support and resources to those committed to meaningful assessment of student learning and institutional effectiveness Elected first Executive Board in June 2012 (11 members, 6 from SUNY, including 3 State Ops and 3 Community Colleges) SERVICES: Annual Conference, Listserv, Newsletter, Regional Workshops 9

SUNY System Liaisons for MSCHE Reviews and Analysis of Review Results 10

Spring 2012 MSCHE Study: Results Purpose Assess SUNY progress toward goals Inform campuses for improvement Data Sources Documents from 41 MSCHE reviews in 2010 – 2012 Decennial visits, follow ups & PRRs Commission actions or team reports Method Identify and classify each finding Caveats No records yet for a few reviews Team reports not definitive 11

MSCHE – Definitions of Types of Findings 12 Commendation: Significant accomplishments, significant progress, or exemplary/innovative practices. Suggestion: Non-binding Findings for Improvement. Recommendation: Institutional action needed for the institution to continue to meet the standards in Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education. (Must be reported on in PRR or Monitoring Reports.) Requirement: Institutional actions needed to achieve compliance with the standard; “requirements” necessitate Commission action of postponement, warning, probation, or show cause. (Followed by additional monitoring reports and small team follow-up visit.)

13

14

15

16

17

Omnibus Requirements (10Q) and Recommendations (2R) 18 Appear most frequently in situations where: 1.assessment efforts appear random and inconsistent 2.evidence of assessment is lacking 3.the institution has been cited previously for assessment, and progress seems insufficient Are most helpful in delineating all of the elements that an assessment plan and process need to indicate.

Sustainability of efforts, degree or consistency of implementation (18R) 19 These recommendations are used primarily when assessment is underway, but: the process is so complex or labor intensive that it cannot be sustained long term the process is applied incompletely or inconsistently

Linking assessment to planning and budgeting (13R) and closing the loop (12R, 1Q) 20 These recommendations tend to appear when: assessment does not seem to be used to create institutional or departmental budgets assessment does not appear to be used in strategic or unit planning The process is also especially important for academic planning: implementation of new programs elimination of programs

Alignment of all assessments, including curriculum mapping (12R, 5Q) 21 Curricular and assessment alignment: clear linkages among student learning goals at the program, general education and course level. Some teams have looked for: evidence that assessment of student learning outcomes specifically informs faculty grading policy evidence that course syllabi contain this information

Development of SLOs for all programs and courses including graduate programs (6R) 22 ALL programs and courses must have clearly identified and published student learning outcomes (SLOs). Program-level information must be available in catalogs and on websites.

Staff and institutional support for assessment (6R) 23 These recommendations are primarily evident where: there is no formal ownership of the assessment process in a particular organizational structure various campus leaders are unresponsive to the need for their participation in assessment processes appropriate assessment processes lack sufficient institutional research support processes for assessment are particularly labor intensive

Use of quantitative measures, direct measures, and data (6R) 24 Use of multiple measures is recommended. Quantitative measures in sufficient quantity must be used. Direct measures of student learning must be included (as opposed to use of grades or surveys alone).

Communication of assessment results (6R) 25 These recommendations appear in situations where assessment results appear to be owned by a few people. The need for access to these results for Boards of Trustees and College Councils has also been noted. Communication of results is seen as an important part of linking assessment with planning and budgeting.

Goals for all functional units – administrative assessment (5R) 26 Implement assessment of all college services. All offices including Business Offices, Financial Aid, Public Safety, Human Resources, among others, should have documented unit goals and assessment plans.

Culture of assessment/faculty engagement (5R, 1Q) 27 Some recommendations have indicated a need for all faculty to be actively engaged in assessment activities.

Incorporation of student learning outcomes in institutional effectiveness assessment (5R) 28 The primary purpose of Standard 7 is to assess whether or not an institution is meeting its mission and goals. Since the primary mission of any institution of higher education is student learning, these outcomes are considered to be appropriate to this standard.

Formal assessment plan document (3R, 1Q) 29 The assumption that ‘everybody knows’ what needs to be done for assessment and what the processes are isn’t enough. Need a document which outlines: all of the processes and how they fit together, who is responsible, what measures are being used, what the timeline is, and how the results have been used for improvement. See the omnibus recommendations and requirements for more detail on what these plans should include. Also helpful is the SUNY Memorandum to Presidents on the SUNY Website.

New Standards Increased focus on the student experience and assessment of that experience Much of the same content is covered Approved by the Commission and the member institutions New Draft Standards include: 1.Mission and Goals 2.Ethics and Integrity 3.Student Learning Opportunities 4.Support of the Student Experience 5.Educational Effectiveness Assessment 6.Planning, Resources, and Institutional Improvement 7.Governance, Leadership, and Administration 30

Requirements of Affiliation (new) #8 The institution systematically evaluates its educational and other programs and makes public how well and in what ways it is accomplishing its purposes. #9 The institution’s student learning programs and opportunities are characterized by rigor, coherence, and appropriate assessment of student achievement throughout the educational offerings, regardless of certificate or degree level or delivery and instructional modality. #10 institutional planning integrates goals for academic and institutional effectiveness and improvement, student achievement of educational goals, student learning, and the results of academic and institutional assessments. 31

New Standards -- Assessment 32 clearly stated educational goals at the institution and degree/program levels, which are interrelated with one another, with relevant educational experiences, and with the institution’s mission; periodic assessment of the effectiveness of assessment processes utilized by the institution for the improvement of educational effectiveness.

New Standards – Assessment cont’d organized and systematic assessments, conducted by faculty and/or appropriate professionals, evaluating the extent of student achievement of institutional and degree/program goals. Institutions should: a. define meaningful curricular goals with defensible standards for evaluating whether students are achieving those goals; b. articulate how they prepare students in a manner consistent with their mission for successful careers, meaningful lives, and, where appropriate, further education. They should collect and provide data on the extent to which they are meeting these goals; c. support and sustain assessment of student achievement and communicate the results of this assessment to stakeholders; 33

Next Steps Process focus Revised PRR process HEOA compliance issues: Credit Hour (need to review periodically) Distance Education student identification verification Financial Aid Default rates Transfer of Credit policies and articulation agreements ( Booklet2015.pdf) Booklet2015.pdf 34

Other Accreditation Considerations 1.Substantive Change for o Distance Education o Additional Locations o New Degree levels and o Other Must be done BEFORE students participate Potential Title IV consequences USDOE monitors MSCHE website 2.Compliance plays an increasing role 3.Other Accreditors are notified of adverse actions 35

Questions? 36