accountability, accreditation and institutional effectiveness

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).”

ongoing integrated

institution-wide research-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 Education Career 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

1 progress of Basic Skills students replaced w/ 1 & 2

12 separate measures, 1 & 2:progress of Basic Skills students

2 pass rate for licensure and certification exams

same, but #7

2 GED diploma rate (new)

3 good standing of 4 year transfer students

same, but #8

3 success of developmental students in college-level English

4 pass rate in developmental courses eliminated 4 success of developmental students in college-level math

5 success of developmental students in college courses

replaced w/ 3 & 4

5 first year progression (new)

6 student satisfaction with programs eliminated 6 persistence of curriculum students

7 persistence of curriculum students same, but #6

7 pass rate for licensure and certification exams

8 satisfaction of business/industry eliminated 8 good standing of 4 year transfer students

2011-20122011-2012New Process for NC Accountability

Measures

• 8 measures

• All NC Community College’s data is combined and the system office has created a GOALGOAL and a BASELINEBASELINE 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.

49.8%- CPCC above college mean; CPCC above college mean; below goal below goal

((2,356 students out of 4,730 progressed)

System GoalSystem Goal 51.2%51.2%System BaselineSystem Baseline 20.6%20.6%College Mean 41.0%System Totals 41.5%

B. GED Diploma Passing RateBenchmark: 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; 75.1%- CPCC above college mean; below goal below goal (289 students out of 385 passed GED test)


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.

CPCC met the GOALGOAL- 77.8%(1,457 students out of 1,872 had a C or better

or “P” upon first attempt)


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.

71.5%- CPCC above college mean; below goalCPCC above college mean; below goal

(993 students out of 1,388 had a “C “ or better upon first attempt.)


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; 70.3%- CPCC above college mean; below goalbelow goal

System GoalSystem Goal 74.6%74.6%System BaselineSystem Baseline 53.2%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


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.

CPCC met the GOALGOAL (92.3%)

System GoalSystem Goal 91.7%91.7%

System BaselineSystem Baseline 71.0%71.0%College Mean 85.0%System Totals 86.9%

G. Passing Rates for State Licensure Exams

2011-2012

( [ DP $ UHD

7DNLQJ ( [ DP

3DVVLQJ ( [ DP

3DVVLQJ ( [ DP

%DVLF/ DZ( QIRUFHP HQW

5 HDO( VWDWH - 6DOHV 33

' HQWDO+ \ JLHQH

3K\ VLFDO7KHUDS\ $ VVLVWDQW 18

5 HJLVWHUHG1 XUVLQJ 64

( 0 7-( P HUJHQF\ 0 HGLFDO 7HFKQLFLDQ

230

7RWDO$ JJUHJDWH3DVV5 DWH 395 92%

H. Performance of 2010-2011 College Transfer StudentsBenchmark: 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

86.9%- CPCC above college mean; CPCC above college mean; below goalbelow goal


Overall Success by CPCC Accountability Measures for 2011-12A. 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

Questions?

• Our website:

• http://www.cpcc.edu/ie

accountability, accreditation and institutional effectiveness

Documents