Pulaski Technical College Accreditation Overview November 19,

Accreditation Pathways The Higher Learning Commission offers institutions the following three Accreditation Pathways: Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) Open Pathway Standard Pathway 2

What is AQIP? An eight-year accreditation process that requires the use of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) principles. A program that relies on data and outcome measures. A participatory process that involves internal and external constituents. The foundation is fact-based decisions, working with diverse groups, resolving conflicts, and using quality based tools to build consensus. 3

AQIP Eight-Year Cycle Attend Strategy Forum Create Action Projects aligned with AQIP Categories Submit Systems Portfolio Peer Review Systems Appraisal – Identifies strengths and opportunities for improvement based on in- depth analysis of the institution’s AQIP Category processes, results, and improvement responses. – Provides feedback on the evidence meeting the Criteria for Accreditation. – The institution responds to Feedback (evidenced through quality improvement projects) Comprehensive Quality Review for Reaffirmation (each Core Component will be evaluated as “Met,” “Met with concerns,” or “Not met.” 4

AQIP Categories Category One: Helping Students Learn focuses on the design, deployment, and effectiveness of teaching-learning processes (and on the processes required to support them) that underlie the institution’s credit and non-credit programs and courses. Category Two: Meeting Student and Other Key Stakeholder Needs addresses the key processes (separate from instructional programs and internal support services) through which the institution serves its external stakeholders in support of its mission. Category Three: Valuing Employees explores the institution’s commitment to the hiring, development, and evaluation of faculty, staff, and administrators. Category Four: Planning and Leading focuses on how the institution achieves its mission and lives its vision through direction setting, goal development, strategic actions, threat mitigation, and capitalizing on opportunities. Category Five: Knowledge Management and Resource Stewardship addresses management of the fiscal, physical, technological, and information infrastructures designed to provide an environment in which learning can thrive. Category Six: Quality Overview focuses on the Continuous Quality Improvement culture and infrastructure of the institution. This category gives the institution a chance to reflect on all its quality improvement initiatives, how they are integrated, and how they contribute to improvement of the institution. 5

PTC AQIP History AQIP Application Submitted- June 2008 Entered AQIP- September 2008 Attended First Strategy Forum- February 2009 Ongoing Action Projects Submitted First Systems Portfolio- June 2012 Quality Check-Up Visit- October 2012 Reaffirmation of Accreditation- December 2012 Ongoing Action Projects Attended Second Strategy Forum- February 2015 Next Systems Portfolio- Due June 1,

Current AQIP Action Projects Building an Infrastructure for Mandatory First-Time Entering Academic Advising (Category One: Helping Students Learn) Creating a Culture of Continuous Quality Improvement (Category Six: Quality Overview) Enhancing E-Learning Quality Through Institutional Policy and Procedures (Category One: Helping Students Learn) 7

Past AQIP Action Projects Improving Institutional Support Processes: Development of Human Resources Training and Professional Development Program Improving Mathematic Success Rates Through Proactive Faculty Engagement Supporting Academic and Economic Development in STEM Fields Through Advanced College Physics Courses To Review, Research, Revitalize, Restructure, and Recreate a Quality Faculty Handbook Empowering Faculty and Staff Through an Interactive Culture of Evidence Development of a Comprehensive, Customer-Service Based Advisor Training Program Intervention Strategies to Improve African American Male Success During Freshman Year 8

Outstanding Opportunities for Improvement 2012 Feedback and Site Visit To develop and explicate the processes by which considerations of feedback from external and internal sources are made, prioritized, and implemented to create, modify, or discontinue programs and courses (AQIP Category One). Develop and communicate the processes involved in collecting, reviewing, and communicating data used to determine if students have met learning and development expectations (AQIP Category One). To provide data on stakeholder satisfaction beyond student satisfaction and to understand how the institution is perceived by the broader community (AQIP Category Two). Organize institutional planning processes and evaluate risks (AQIP Categories Four and Five). 9

Criteria for Accreditation The Core Components The institution meets the Core Component if the Core Component: a.is met without concerns, that is the institution meets or exceeds the expectations embodied in the Component; or b.is met with concerns, that is the institution demonstrates the characteristics expected by the Component, but performance in relation to some aspect of the Component must be improved. The institution does not meet the Core Component if the institution: a.fails to meet the Component in its entirety; or b.is so deficient in one or more aspects of the Component that the Component is judged not to be met. The Criteria for Accreditation The institution meets the Criterion if the Criterion: a.is met without concerns, that is the institution meets or exceeds the expectations embodied in the Criterion; or b.is met with concerns, that is the institution demonstrates the characteristics expected by the Criterion, but performance in relation to some Core Components of the Criterion must be improved. The institution does not meet the Criterion if the institution: a.fails to meet the Criterion in its entirety; or b.is so deficient in one or more Core Components of the Criterion that the Criterion is judged not to be met. 10

The institution meets the Criterion only if all Core Components are met. The institution must be judged to meet all five Criteria for Accreditation to merit accreditation. HLC will take the following actions based on the outcomes of its review:  continue accreditation (with or without conditions or sanctions); or  deny accreditation Criteria for Accreditation 11

A means by which the institution will receive feedback on organizational strengths and opportunities from a team of quality improvement experts and educators. A common reference point for everyone to share an understanding of how the institution is organized, what its key processes entail, what kind of performance those processes produce and how the institution subsequently improves. An opportunity for self-reflection on institutional key processes, results, and continuous improvement activities. Systems Portfolio Purposes 12

A planning tool that helps the institution shape its future agenda and concentrate everyone’s attention on those areas that should be the focus for improvement. A documentation of evidence, over time, that the AQIP Pathway is working to the institution’s advantage and that continued participation in the pathway makes sense. A public information and relations tool that allows an institution’s stakeholders to understand clearly and persuasively what the institution is accomplishing with its resources. Systems Portfolio Purposes cont. 13

Higher Learning Commission (primary) Board of Trustees Faculty, Staff, and Students Other audiences include: prospective students, faculty and staff; parents, employers, funding bodies, donors, or other accrediting agencies. Audiences 14

Stages in Systems Maturity 15

Important: Second and subsequent versions of an institution's Systems Portfolio should clearly demonstrate a commitment to continuous improvement and maturation of institutional processes and results. Stages in Systems Maturity 16

Institutional Overview Mission, values and/or strategic vision Numbers and types of students, faculty, and staff Level and scope of academic offerings Campuses and additional instructional locations Distance delivery programs Other key programs and resources Portfolio Components 17

Quality Program Overview Description of quality improvement experiences. Reflection on key challenges, accomplishments, failures and future opportunities. Discussion of the last 2-4 years since its last Systems Appraisal, Quality Review, or Reaffirmation Cite examples (including Action Projects) of improvement initiatives implemented to further develop its quality program. Portfolio Components 18

Category Introductions Discusses the institution’s sense of the maturity of its processes, results, and improvement. Identifies where in the category the institution is focusing its attention. Category Responses Detailed responses to Process (P), Results (R), and Improvement (I) items. Embedded evidence the institution is meeting HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation. Portfolio Components 19

Processes (P)  “Processes” are the methods by which faculty and staff complete their work — both academic and administrative.  Process questions ask institutions to explain how work is accomplished. Process (P) items ask for documentation of the who, when, where, how, and why for key institutional processes. Responses to P, R, and I Items 20

Results (R) Present key results germane to the processes described in the process section. Use (and number) tables, graphs, and charts whenever possible. Present the performance level, trend data, and, when possible, benchmark comparisons to similar institutions. When referencing tables, graphs, and/or charts, provide a brief narrative, explanation and analysis of the data. Use Stages in Systems Maturity tables to guide the description of the institution’s results. Responses to P, R, and I Items 21

Improvement (I) Responses should illustrate a clear pattern of how the institution is improving its processes (and therefore its results) based on the data and information presented in the R items. The specific improvements being targeted should be described. Continuous improvement is a challenging goal that requires most institutions to first design and measure key processes. It is only when performance results are known and can be analyzed over time that continuous improvement becomes possible. Therefore, most institutions will find that responses to I items in the first Systems Portfolio may be reports of improvements based on Action Projects and other strategic initiatives. However, subsequent Systems Portfolios should describe improvements based on analyses of data and information. Responses to P, R, and I Items 22

Questions 23