1. NEASC Reaccreditation and Planning
CPARC
September 22, 2017

2. Reaccreditation and Planning: NEASC
Conducted by the Commission on Higher Education, New England Association of Schools and Colleges
One of the seven regional accrediting bodies recognized by the federal government
Independent, membership organization…
…but acts on behalf of the federal government, and under increasing pressure to be more prescriptive and more closely aligned with federal priorities

3. Reaccreditation and Planning: NEASC
Comprehensive review every ten years
Likely outcomes
We will not flunk
Accreditation continued for a ten-year period
Identification of issues to be watched
Specific issues requiring substantive progress assessment at our five-year mid-term review
Attention on the part of the press, public, and stakeholders

4. Reaccreditation and Planning: NEASC
NEASC major focus areas
Sustainable financial strategy
Assessment and planning
Student outcomes assessment
Increasingly important for all colleges and universities
Central to our own strategy

5. Reaccreditation and Planning
Demonstrate a sustainable financial strategy
Build understanding of our financial situation and our choices and strategies
Build confidence in our stewardship and resourcefulness
Make the case for additional investment from taxpayers, students and families, state and federal agencies, and donors
Become increasingly effective in aligning resources with strategic priorities

6. Reaccreditation and Planning
Move to the next level in planning, assessment and improvement
Review and refresh the campus’s strategic plan
Deepen the “culture of evidence”
Become increasingly effective in aligning resources with strategic priorities

7. Reaccreditation and Planning
Demonstrate leadership in using evidence to improve the student experience
The campus is already in a strong position with respect to indirect evidence (student satisfaction, student self-report, etc.)
Identify the most important questions and use existing and expanded indirect and direct evidence more systematically

8. 2018 NEASC Self Study Respond to all standards 100 pages
Nine standards
184 sub-standards
100 pages
Plus data forms, appendices
Engage the community
CPARC to serve as steering committee
Numerous working groups and subcommittees
Integrated with strategic plan review and refresh

9. 2018 NEASC Self Study Mission and Purpose Planning and Evaluation
Organization and Governance
Academic Program
Students
Teaching, Learning and Scholarship
Institutional Resources
Educational Effectiveness
Integrity, Transparency and Public Disclosure

10. Examples of NEASC Standards
Standard 6: Teaching, Learning and Scholarship
6.4  The institution employs an open and orderly process for recruiting and appointing its faculty… 
6.10 Faculty are demonstrably effective in carrying out their assigned responsibilities… 
Standard 4: Academic Program
4.7 The institution undertakes academic planning and evaluation as part of its overall planning and evaluation to enhance the achievement of institutional mission and program objectives….
4.15 Graduates successfully completing an undergraduate program demonstrate competence in written and oral communication in English; the ability for scientific and quantitative reasoning, for critical analysis and logical thinking; and the capability for continuing learning…
Standard 8: Educational Effectiveness
8.3  Assessment of learning is based on verifiable statements of what students are expected to gain, achieve, demonstrate, or know…
8.5  The institution uses a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods and direct and indirect measures to understand the experiences and learning outcomes of its students…

11. Approach for Self Study Development
NEASC Standards
Compliance
Federal definition of a student credit hour
Identity verification for online students
Financial statement, audit standards
2009 Self Study
Review and update as needed
2018
Self Study
Substantive
Faculty are demon-strably effective...
Student success is measured and results used to improve
Multi-year financial planning is realistic
2017
Strategic Plan Progress and Refresh
Unit Plan refresh

12. Developing the Self Study
Description, Appraisal, Projection for Campus Priorities
Draw from and elaborate on the revised campus plan
Iterative with Working Groups
Compliance
Work with technical groups and appropriate staff

13. Strategic Plan “Refresh” — What is it?
Opportunity to take stock of changes over the past 4-5 years
In our situation
Progress resulting from earlier planning
Reality check, not starting from scratch
Confirm/Revise campus-level priorities
Changes needed in direction, focus
Emerging issues
Results in updated campus-level plan/priorities

14. Strategic Plan “Refresh” — What is it?
Engage campus leadership in framing the issues
CLC-Deans, Academic department heads: begun in leadership retreats
A&S leaders: TBD
Governance groups: September
CPARC: Ongoing
Outcomes
Draft for campus discussion: mid-November
Updated campus-level plan/priorities: end of semester

15. Strategic Plan “Refresh” — What is it?
Step One: Understanding our Situation
Are original assumptions still valid?
Situation analysis with campus leaders
Step Two: Priorities for Action
Does the plan still fit?
Working Groups
Diversity
Undergraduate Experience
Graduate Education
Resources

16. Reaccreditation and Planning
Demonstrate leadership in using evidence to improve the student experience
Central to NEASC and other external expectations
Central to campus priorities (Destination of Choice)

17. E-Series Forms: Making Assessment More Explicit (1)
Option E1: Part a. Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators
Category
(1)
Where are the learning outcomes for this level/program published? (please specify)
Include URLs where appropriate.
(2)
Other than GPA, what data/ evidence is used to determine that graduates have achieved the stated outcomes for the degree? (e.g., capstone course, portfolio review, licensure examination)
(3)
Who interprets the evidence? What is the process?
(e.g. annually by the curriculum committee)
(4)
What changes have been made as a result of using the data/evidence?
(5)
Date of most recent program review (for general education and each degree program)
At the institutional level:
For general education if an undergraduate institution:
List each degree program: 1.

18. Student Outcomes Assessment/Student Experience
Educational Effectiveness Plan (EEP)
Eliminate redundancy and sense of busy work
Knit together huge amount of work already done
Focus effort every two or three years
Do it once, use it often

19. Student Outcomes Assessment/Student Experience
Frame unit plan refresh around EEP framework
Redraft AQAD guidelines and procedures
Incorporate NEASC framework
Revise P&B guidelines

20. Role of CPARC
CPARC has been asked to serve as the campus Steering Committee for the reaccreditation process
Promote open, accountable process
Provide advice and feedback on process and substance
Ensure integration of strategic plan into Self Study
CPARC charge to review the implementation of the annual budget process
CPARC charge to encourage efforts to pursue campus-wide priorities

21. Charge (slide from May 4, 2017 Faculty Senate presentation)
Consistent with Faculty Senate motion (May 5, 2016), the Committee will assume certain responsibilities as successor to JTFSO and JTFRA:
Undertaking, through a subcommittee established for this purpose, input on and review of the implementation of the annual budget process, including preparation of the FY18 budget, with a view to ensuring that the resource allocation system serves the purposes of aligning resources with values and goals, transparency, and consultation, and with recommending adjustments as needed;
Fully integrating the work of the Joint Subcommittee on Administrative Costs and Services no later than the end of the Fall 2016 semester;
Encouraging ongoing efforts to pursue campus-wide priorities, including, but not limited to, the campus’s Diversity Plan, plans for Internationalization, and an Outreach and Engagement Strategy.

22. Campus Budget Planning Process

23. Next Steps for CPARC (from May 4, 2017 Faculty Senate presentation)
“Look back” How did budget process align with strategic priorities and campus values?
“Look forward” Use feedback to recommend changes to the process
Advise on the preparation for the NEASC re-accreditation self-study including re-visiting campus strategic priorities
Continue discussion with groups engaged in other strategic planning

24. CPARC Planning Estimated Timeline
Sept/Oct
Nov/Dec
January
Feb 2018
Spring18
Summer18
Review Draft Description, Appraisal, Projection: Compliance
Review Draft Description, Appraisal, Projection: Strategic
NEASC Self-Study
Review final drafts
Strategic Plan Refresh
Situation Assessment, Review Priorities, Review WG
Review Revised SP Refresh
Review Draft SP Refresh
FY19 Planning and Budget
Lookback and Look forward
Chairs feedback

25. Looking Back…

26. Looking Back…

27. Looking Back…

28. Looking Ahead…
Recommendations for FY19 Planning and Budget process
Recommendations for Future P&B processes
Recommendations for unit plan refresh in Y18-19

29. Student Outcomes Assessment/Student Experience

30. ! ! ! ! Inputs Outcomes Outputs Processes
Subject Matter
(direct evidence)
Group Work
Problem Solving
Quantitative Analysis
Writing
Critical Thinking
Outcome:
Subject Matter
(direct evidence)
Group Work
Problem Solving
Quantitative Analysis
Writing
Critical Thinking
Process:
Advising
(satisfaction)
Teaching
Faculty Interaction
Career Preparation
Process:
Advising
(satisfaction)
Teaching
Faculty Interaction
Career Preparation ! !
Inputs
Resources or conditions feeding into the process
Outcome:
Critical Thinking
(self-report)
Group Work
Problem Solving
Quantitative Analysis
Writing
Subject Matter
Outcome:
Critical Thinking
(self-report)
Group Work
Problem Solving
Quantitative Analysis
Writing
Subject Matter
General Experience
(satisfaction)
Outcome:
Critical Thinking
(self-report)
Group Work
Problem Solving
Quantitative Analysis
Writing
Subject Matter
General Experience
(satisfaction)
Output:
Student Retention
(observation)
Graduation Rate
Time to Degree
Persistence
in Major
Career Achievement
Further Education
Output:
Student Retention
(observation)
Graduation Rate
Time to Degree
Persistence
in Major
Career Achievement
Further Education
Outcomes
What happened in terms of objectives? !
Outputs
Products of the process
Input:
Class Size
(observation)
High School GPA
Input:
Class Size
(observation)
High School GPA
Processes
What we do !

31. Quantitative Analysis
Outcome:
Subject Matter
(direct evidence)
Group Work
Problem Solving
Quantitative Analysis
Writing
Critical Thinking
Process:
Teaching
(satisfaction) !
Outcome:
Subject Matter
(direct evidence) 3

32. Quantitative Analysis
Outcome:
Subject Matter
(direct evidence)
Group Work
Problem Solving
Quantitative Analysis
Writing
Critical Thinking
Outcome:
Critical Thinking
(direct evidence) !
Outcome:
Critical Thinking
(self-report) 3

33. Quantitative Analysis
Outcome:
Subject Matter
(direct evidence)
Group Work
Problem Solving
Quantitative Analysis
Writing
Critical Thinking
Input:
Class Size
(observation) !
Outcome:
Quantitative Analysis
(direct evidence) 3