AQIP Update: Systems Appraisal Feedback Report from the Higher Learning Commission

As part of C.O.D.’s accreditation through the Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) of North Central Association’s Higher Learning Commission (HLC), the college submitted the Systems Portfolio last November for external review by AQIP/ HLC appraisers. The Systems Portfolio is a concise description of C.O.D.’s fundamental systems for getting its work done and goals accomplished. The college recently received the Systems Appraisal Feedback Report, the formal response to the Systems Portfolio, from the HLC. The purpose of this update is to summarize the important findings of the appraisers and answer questions you may have. The complete Systems Appraisal Feedback Report is available at http://www.cod.edu/Academic/AcadServ/AQIP/portfolio.htm.

Feedback from HLC/AQIP Systems Appraisers

SERIOUS ACCREDITATION ISSUE:

• The reviewing team has serious reservations about the definition of General Education learning outcomes at C.O.D. Although some definition has occurred, the College does not define the outcomes for specific programs. While the college uses direct measures for their cognitive outcomes, results shown in the [Systems] Portfolio do not provide useful information that would be used to “close the loop” and lead to improvements in teaching and learning.

OUTSTANDING STRENGTHS:

• C.O.D. has a good planning process that distinguishes between operating plans and strategic plans.
• The college has a good framework for collecting and analyzing data on student and administrative support service processes.
• C.O.D. holds forums to guide the college and provide a steady flow of valid and reliable planning data.
• The college has a well-defined administrative hierarchy, supported by a comprehensive institutional communications plan.

OUTSTANDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT:

• Currently, the college has no processes in place to define or discuss excellence in teaching. Current assessment measures and processes at the classroom, discipline, and college level are insufficient.
• Only a few areas of the college establish targets for improvement and systematically review whether these targets are achieved.
• Modes of communication are not being linked to college work processes.
• C.O.D. lacks a formalized leadership succession plan.
• C.O.D. lacks an assessment process for evaluating the Institutional Effectiveness Council (IEC).
• Since C.O.D. has no assessment process for measuring institutional effectiveness, the college cannot report on the results of such measurement. The data collected are not aligned with planning processes and priorities. Currently, the availability of information determines what questions are asked; the process should work the other way around.
• C.O.D. lacks performance measures for college planning processes. The college needs to develop systematic quantification of success in accomplishing institutional goals and objectives.
• Projections for strategies and action plans lack comparative data to determine levels of performance and to set appropriate targets.
• C.O.D. has experienced a decline in the level of employee understanding of planning process and satisfaction with planning process effectiveness. The college lacks documented evidence of the effectiveness of our CI teams.

STRATEGIC ISSUES FOR C.O.D.:

• The alignment of leadership goals and the complex array of units and departments within the college is an ongoing concern, which produces inconsistent alignment of short- and long-range plans.
• C.O.D. needs to focus on the development of marketing strategies and efforts tailored toward achieving enrollment growth.
• The college lacks a clear understanding of the Continuous Improvement process (i.e., there is no formal process for tracking and measuring institutional effectiveness).
• C.O.D. needs to develop and integrate a proactive and college-wide CQI model into the institutional culture.

Q & A:

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE SYSTEMS APPRAISAL FEEDBACK REPORT?

The chief purpose of the Systems Appraisal Feedback Report is to help the college identify areas for improvement and act so that these areas actually improve. Although C.O.D. does not have to respond immediately to the HLC regarding the Feedback Report, the Commission expects C.O.D. to use the feedback to stimulate cycles of continuous improvement and report on improvements in the subsequent Systems Portfolio, guaranteeing that it will reflect the progress that the college has made.

HOW SHOULD THE SYSTEMS APPRAISAL FEEDBACK REPORT BE READ?

It will help to have a copy of the Systems Portfolio for reference to read through the Feedback Report. There are nine Categories that AQIP uses to address the overall effectiveness of an institution. In each Category, questions to be addressed by AQIP institutions are divided into Context, Process, Result, and Improvement sections. For a complete list of the AQIP questions, go to http://www.cod.edu/Academic/AcadServ/AQIP/questions.pdf.

For each answer the reviewers assigned a rating: SS for Outstanding Strength, S for Strength, OO for Outstanding Opportunity for Improvement, and O for Opportunity for Improvement. Ratings are not assigned as scores of success or failure but are based, instead, on the existence of results, trends and comparative data. In reading the Report, you will see an identifier such as 3P2 in front of each of the reviewers’ statements. This means the question is in Category 3, and it is the second Process question. Not all the questions are addressed. For example, there is a 1C3 but no 1C1 or 1C2. The college answered a total of 138 questions in completing the Systems Portfolio. The Systems Appraisal only includes responses to 107 answers. The other 31 questions are not considered Strengths or Opportunities. The 107 responses are located on pages 10-37 of the Report.

WHAT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY IN SUPPORT OF AQIP AT C.O.D.?

It is critical that C.O.D. gains greater involvement from everyone as the college strives to improve systems and processes using the AQIP model. The college is working through the Leadership Council to create two new committees: the AQIP Steering Committee and the Academic Program Review Advisory Committee to provide better structure and alignment for AQIP at C.O.D. Constituency representatives of Faculty Senate, CODAA, Administrative Council and Classified Personnel Association will seek volunteers to serve on these committees.

WHAT ARE ADDITIONAL NEXT STEPS FOR AQIP?

The team for AQIP Action Project #4, Valuing People – Communication, continues its work. Work has begun on the AQIP priorities (improving academic readiness of students and improving student engagement) that were identified at the Administrative and Senate Planning Retreat and the College-wide Strategic Planning Retreat that were held last fall. More detailed information on each of these efforts will be forthcoming.