Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
An introduction to the Academic Quality Improvement Program of the Higher Learning Commission
Citation preview
AQIP andcontinuous improvement
Stephen D. Spangehl, DirectorAcademic Quality Improvement Program
The Higher Learning Commission
19 States
1000 institutions
The North Central Association region
Goals of AQIP• Help organizations improve performance
and maximize effectiveness while meeting accreditation requirements
• Reshape the relationship with members of the Commission into a partnership and network
• Provide the public with credible quality assurance information concerning higher education providers
Who can participate?
• Institutions already accredited by HLC that want to use this process to maintain continued accreditation
• Institutions not accreditable by HLC that want to use AQIP to drive institutional improvement and seek interaction with other continuous improvers
• Quality-focused colleges or schools within large universities (where the university itself continues to use traditional process for institutional accreditation)
1 4
7
Everyyear
Every 4years
Every 7 years
• A mission and vision driven by students' and other stakeholders' expectations
• Broad-based faculty, staff, and administrative involvement
• Leaders and leadership systems that support a quality culture
• A learning-centered environment
• Respect for and willingness to invest in people
• Collaboration and a shared institutional focus
• Agility, flexibility, and responsiveness to changing needs and conditions
• Planning for innovation and improvement
• Fact-based information-gathering and thinking to support analysis and decision-making
• Integrity and responsible institutional citizenship
Principles of High Performance Organizations
Suppliers
ProvidersProcesses
Recipients
Beneficiaries
Customers
INPUTS OUTPUTS
Input Requirements Output Requirements
What produces current performance?
The Silo ViewStu
den
t A
ffair
s
Hum
an
itie
s
Fin
ance
Aca
dem
ic
Aff
air
s
Main
ten
an
ce
Sci
en
ces
Su
pp
ort
S
ervi
ces
Collecting the data needed for decision-making
Envisioning and Preparing for an Unknown Future
Developing and Capitalizing on People’s Talents
Silo Perspective
Systems Perspective
AdmissionShould be preceded by broad discussion of what quality improvement is and whether it fits the institution’s culture and vision
Institution must present evidence that it
• Understands what continuous quality improvement implies
• Has begun to look at itself from a process-focused perspective
• Has begun to identify potential Action Projects
• Meets the five Criteria for Accreditation• Has been responsive to Commission
concerns and advice (from its last comprehensive evaluation)
Applying institutions in Higher Learning Commission area must
• Be currently accredited and in good standing • Have completed two comprehensive PEAQ
evaluations • Be less than seven years from last
comprehensive PEAQ review
Strategy Forum
• Interactive forum for institutions to review each others’ Action Projects and strategies, providing and receiving constructive feedback
• Opportunity to receive peer review of Action Projects and organizational improvement strategies before they are undertaken
• Teams of institutional leaders craft and shape Action Projects and strategies together
• Institutional teams begin to plan implementation and measurement to ensure that plans succeed
Action Projects
• Dynamic improvement projects that drive an institution’s quality
• program — and inform AQIP• Selected by institution to promote learning and
culture change and respond to opportunities for improvement, problems, or challenges
• Institution reports to AQIP annually on progress or completion of projects
• Action Projects shared via AQIP website to promote collaboration and to enhance self-improving image of higher education
• Essentially serve as intense action learning cycles that focus the institution on hands-on, useful work that further drives change in the entire institution’s culture
Plan,Design, Invent,
Propose, Create, Devise,
Formulate, Originate, Arrange Do,
Execute, Implement, Carry Out, Perform,
Experiment, Test,
Try OutCheck, Study,
Evaluate, Verify,
Research, Assess,
Monitor, Confirm, Review
Act,Revise,
Fine Tune, Redirect, Adjust, Modify, Alter,
Change, Improve
PDCACycle
Systematic Improvement Methods for selecting improvement
opportunities and setting targets Action Projects Plan-Do-Check-Act cycles of improvement Trend lines in measures Closing gaps between institutional
performance and benchmarks
Improving ProcessesDocumenting and stabilizing processesSimplifying processesRemoving “special” causes of variationImproving connections among processesRedesigning an ineffective processDeploying good processes broadly
Annual Updates
• Simple report, due September 21st, describing progress on Action Projects
• Reviewed by quality experts, who provide feedback and advice
• Option for institution to request assistance in cases where progress is stalled
• Opportunity for institutions to identify “outstanding practices” that may deserve Commission recognition and widespread publicity
Systems Portfolio
• 75-100 page public portfolio describing fundamental institutional systems
• Covers the nine AQIP categories, describing processes, results, and improvement in each system
• Portfolio created once (with the first 3 years after an institution joins AQIP) and then kept up-to-date with changes in systems and results
• Valuable for employees, other accreditors, state agencies, and other stakeholders by building shared understanding, consensus, and support for the institution
Academic Quality Improvement Categories
The Categories provide buckets or lenses for examining groups of related processes
The Categories promote a non-prescriptive dialogue about how an institution determines and achieves its goals
Each Category inquires into processes (approach & deployment), results, and improvement
Overall, the AQIP Categories ask:
• Are you doing the right things — the things that are most important in order to achieve your institution’s goals?
• Are you doing things well — effectively, efficiently, in ways that truly satisfy the needs of those you serve?
Each AQIP Category asks:
• How stable, well-designed, and robust are your systems and processes?
• How consistently do you deploy and employ your systems and processes?
• How satisfying are the results your systems and processes achieve?
• How do you use your performance data to drive improvement?
AQIP Categories
Measuring Effectiveness
UnderstandingStudents’and other
Stakeholders’Needs
Building CollaborativeRelationships
Planning ContinuousImprovement
AccomplishingOther Distinctive
Objectives
Leading andCommunicating
ValuingPeople
HelpingStudents Learn
SupportingInstitutional Operations
1P1 How do you determine your common student learning objectives as well as specific program learning objectives? Who is involved in setting these objectives?
1P4 How do you communicate expectations regarding student preparation and student learning objectives (for programs, courses, and the awarding of specific degrees or credentials) to prospective and current students?How do admissions, student support, and registration services aid in this process?
1P5 How do you help students select programs of study that match their needs, interests, and abilities?
In providing this help, how are discrepancies between the necessary and actual preparation of students and their learning styles detected and addressed?
Systems Appraisal
• When an institution joins, AQIP sets the date of its next re-affirmation of accreditation in 7 years
• Re-affirmation of accreditation every 7 years, based on pattern of participation that provides evidence of dedication to continuous improvement and a pattern of results that indicates the commitment is paying off
• No single visit or event precipitates or causes re-affirmation
• Independent appraisal of an institution’s Systems Portfolio conducted every four years
• Valuable professional feedback report for improvement created for each institution
• Prompt, consistent appraisals conducted by heterogeneous panels of trained, experienced reviewers —some from outside higher education — knowledgeable about quality
• Separate independent and consensus review stages ensure that appraisers produce feedback that represents the team’s shared views of institutional strengths and opportunities for improvement
• Blind review process, focusing institutional attention on the feedback itself rather than the identify of members of the team providing it
• Feedback provided in summary rubrics for public information, and in confidential, detailed actionable comments and explanations
Quality Checkup
• Conducted 1-2 years prior to reaffirmation of accreditation, planned collaboratively with institution; minor preparation required
• Assures that any accreditation issues raised by the last Systems Appraisal have been addressed, spot-checks veracity of the Systems Portfolio
• Affirms institution is broadly committed to continuous improvement
• Size and length dependent on agenda - minimum is two peer reviewers for two days
Reaffirmation of Accreditation
• When an institution joins, AQIP sets the date of its next re-affirmation of accreditation in 7 years
• Re-affirmation of accreditation every 7 years, based on pattern of participation that provides evidence of dedication to continuous improvement and a pattern of results that indicates the commitment is paying off
• No single visit or event precipitates or causes re-affirmation
SystemsSystemsAppraisalAppraisal
StrategyStrategyForumForum
SystemsSystemsPortfolioPortfolio
AnnualAnnualUpdatesUpdates
ActionActionProjectsProjects
QualityQualityCheckupCheckup
Reaffirmation ofReaffirmation ofAccreditationAccreditation
Overall how satisfied are you with the value your institution has received from its participation in
the Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP)?
199
219
177 2
0
50
100
150
200
250
Extremelysatisfied
Satisfied Neither satisfiednor dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Extremelydissatisfied
Compared with other accrediting programs (regional national and specialized) that you have experienced how would you describe
the value your institution gets from participating in AQIP?
212
180
45
5 20
50
100
150
200
250
Much morevaluable
More valuable About the same Less valuable Much less valuable
Would you recommend to other colleges and universities that they participate in AQIP?
234
175
27
3 30
50
100
150
200
250
Stronglyrecommendparticipating
Recommendparticipating
Neutral Recommendagainst
participating
Stronglyrecommend against
participating
