1. AQIP Project Status Update
AQIP Steering Committee Meeting
August 26, 2011
This template can be used as a starter file to give updates for project milestones.
Sections
Right-click on a slide to add sections. Sections can help to organize your slides or facilitate collaboration between multiple authors.
Notes
Use the Notes section for delivery notes or to provide additional details for the audience. View these notes in Presentation View during your presentation.
Keep in mind the font size (important for accessibility, visibility, videotaping, and online production)
Coordinated colors
Pay particular attention to the graphs, charts, and text boxes.
Consider that attendees will print in black and white or grayscale. Run a test print to make sure your colors work when printed in pure black and white and grayscale.
Graphics, tables, and graphs
Keep it simple: If possible, use consistent, non-distracting styles and colors.
Label all graphs and tables.

2. Project Timeline – Portfolio Development
Gap Action Plan
Standard Action Plan
Draft Chapter
Index to HLC Criteria
Feb-April ’ May-July ’ Aug-Dec ‘ Jan ’12
Stakeholder Review
Submit Portfolio
Feb-April ’ 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
* If any of these issues caused a schedule delay or need to be discussed further, include details in next slide.

4. Current Status – Portfolio Development
Gap Action Plan
Standard Action Plan
Draft Chapter
Index to HLC Criteria
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
The AQIP Categories describe processes that are key to the operation of the organization by telling
who does it
who "owns" or controls it (and therefore has the authority to change it if changes are necessary or desirable)
what equipment, training, or special skills are required to do it
what output it produces
what inputs it requires
what steps, tasks, or activities are involved in doing it
when it occurs and how long it takes
what would happen if it failed to operate properly
what its goals or objectives are
how broadly the process is deployed (used) across the organization
whether it is important for the process to always produce similar 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 Aspiration Best 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.
Monitoring reports. The Commission may require a monitoring report in situations requiring careful ongoing attention. By requiring such a report, the Commission signals that the situation must change in a specific way and that, if it does not the Commission will require additional monitoring. 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. Such a report specifies why the anticipated change requires monitoring, exactly what conditions require the organization to file the report, and what issues the staff should consider when the report is received.
Placed on Notice (Commission Sanction)
An organization 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. In placing an organization on notice, the Board identifies in the institution’s Statement of Affiliation Status the specific conditions that led to its being placed on notice and a due date for a written report on corrective measures taken.
Probation (Commission Sanction)
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. In placing an organization on probation, the Board identifies in the institution’s Statement of Affiliation Status the specific conditions that led to probation and the date of the next comprehensive evaluation, at which time the institution must provide clear evidence of its progress toward ameliorating those conditions.

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
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
Revision, Deletion, and Addition of:
Core Components
Sub-components
Minimum Expectations (now organized by the Criteria)

17. Evolution of the Criteria for Accreditation
Current Criteria
Alpha Revision
Beta Revision
One
Mission and Integrity
Mission
Two
Preparing for the Future
Integrity
Three
Student Learning and Effective Teaching
Resources and Planning
Academic Programs-Quality, Resources and Support
Four
Acquisition, Discovery, and Application of Knowledge
Effective Teaching and Learning
Academic Programs-Evaluation and Improvement
Five
Engagement and Service
Substance and Rigor
Academic Programs-Quality, Resources and Support – Rigor (college-level), Relevant Content, Support Services
Academic Programs-Evaluation and Improvement – Assessment

18. Criteria Revision Initiative
Final version released for Nov-Dec 2011
Seven Regional Forums (summer 2011)
Commission Board Review (November 2011)
Approval by Commission 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