Reaffirmation of Accreditation Recommendation for North Central State College Mansfield, Ohio

Transcription

1 Reaffirmation of Accreditation Recommendation for Mansfield, Ohio of the Academic Quality improvement Program Review Panel on Reaffirmation The Higher Learning Commission A Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools AQIP Review Panel on Reaffirmation (lead reviewers starred) Dr. Jeanie Crain, Professor, Department of English, Missouri Western University, MO Dr. Mark A. Kretovics, Associate Professor, Higher Education Administration and Student Personnel, Kent State University, OH Dr. John Nichols, NEH Distinguished Teaching Professor of Philosophy, Saint Joseph's College, IN *Dr. Larry Sanderson, Director, Institutional Effectiveness, New Mexico Junior College, NM Dr. Ronald L. Shape, Chief Executive Officer, National American University, SD *Dr. Linda Wild, Dean, Center for Academic Excellence, Bellevue University, NE Dr. Cecelia Wittmayer, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dakota State University, SD Dr. Linda Wellborn, Director of Institutional Research, Evangel University, MO

2 Contents I. Context and Nature of Review...3 A. Review Purpose, Process, and Materials...3 B. Organizational Context...3 C. Organizational Scope and Structure (including extended physical or distance education operations)...4 D. Notification of Quality Checkup Visit and Solicitation of Third-Party Comment...5 E. Compliance with Federal Requirements...5 F. Evidence of the Organization s Responsiveness to Previous Commission Concerns regarding fulfillment of the Criteria for Accreditation...5 II. Fulfillment of the Criteria for Accreditation...5 Criterion One: Mission and Integrity...5 Criterion Two: Preparing for the Future...7 Criterion Three: Student Learning and Effective Teaching...8 Criterion Four: Acquisition, Discovery, and Application of Knowledge...9 Criterion Five: Engagement and Service...10 Summary of panel recommendations regarding fulfillment of the Criteria for Accreditation...12 III. Participation in the Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP)...12 A. Comments and counsel on AQIP action projects...12 B. Comments and counsel on the AQIP categories...12 C. Comments and counsel on the AQIP principles of high performance organizations and the institution s quality program or infrastructure...13 Summary of panel counsel about the organization s commitment to continuous quality improvement and its participation in AQIP

3 I. Context and Nature of Review A. Review Purpose, Process, and Materials AQIP Reaffirmation of Accreditation reviews are scheduled seven years in advance, when an institution first joins the Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) or when an institution already participating in AQIP is reaffirmed via the AQIP Reaffirmation of Accreditation process. In conducting these reviews, the AQIP Reaffirmation of review panel examines the following materials for each institution: Current Commission History file of institutional actions Current Commission Statement of Affiliation Status Current official Commission Organizational Profile Annual Updates of year s Action Projects AQIP Review Panel Report(s) on Institutional Status Change Requests Focused visit report(s) and action letter(s) Institutional websites Key correspondence between the institution and the Commission Last Comprehensive PEAQ Evaluation team report, institutional response, and Commission action letter Quality Checkup Report(s) Summary of Action Projects attempted Summary Update of institutional activity and dynamics since the last Quality Checkup, provided by the institution on September 1 of the review year Systems Appraisal Feedback Report(s) Systems Portfolio Index(as) (to compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation) Systems Portfolio(s), including update provided by the institution on September 1 of the review year Any other major reports or documents that are part of the institution s permanent Commission files Two lead panelists from the AQIP Reaffirmation of Accreditation draft a recommendation that is reviewed and approved by the entire panel before it is forwarded to the Institutional Actions Council. B. Organizational Context (NCSC) was first known as the Mansfield School of Technology founded by the Mansfield Board of Education and approved by the State of Ohio Department of Education in September It was then chartered as North Central Technical College by the 3

4 Ohio Board of Regents in September 1968 to serve the Technical College District consisting of Ashland, Crawford, and Richland Counties. In August 1999 the Board of Trustees changed the name of the college to. The Higher Learning Commission recorded the name change on January 1, The last PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluation for (NCSC) was completed in NCSC was admitted to AQIP on February 15, The college participated in Strategy Forums in March 2006 and February NCSC has four active Action Projects on file with the Higher Learning Commission. Those Action Projects include the following: Valuing People Adjunct Faculty Professional Development, Strategic Professional Development, Integrating AQIP Processes at NC State, and Developing and Piloting a Program Review Process. The institution provided its Systems Portfolio for review in and received a Systems Appraisal Feedback Report in February The next Systems Appraisal is scheduled for AQIP conducted a Quality Checkup visit at NCSC November 17-19, 2010, and provided a report of the findings of the visiting team on December 6, On July 18, 2011 the Institutional Actions Council (IAC) of the Higher Learning Commission approved NCSC s application for Substantive Change. The IAC voted to approve a contractual agreement with Ashland County West Career Center to offer the Bioscience Associate Degree, and a contractual relationship with Central Ohio Emergency Medical Services to offer the Health Services Technology Degree. C. Organizational Scope and Structure (including extended physical or distance education operations) is chartered by the Ohio Board of Regents as a state-assisted, notfor-profit, two-year, open-enrollment technical college and is a member of the University System of Ohio. It is governed by a nine member local Board of Trustees. Three trustees are appointed by the Ohio governor; the remaining six members are local appointments. The official district of the College consists of three primarily rural counties in north central Ohio; however, the College does provide significant workforce training and educational services to more outlying counties. The College sits on 600 wooded acres and shares the campus with a branch of The Ohio State University. Some physical facilities and services are shared by both institutions. Each institution has its own administration, faculty, curriculum, policies, operating procedures and mission focus. The College offers five associate degrees: Associate of Arts, Associate of Science, Associate of Applied Business, Associate of Applied Science and Associate of Technical Studies. Approval to offer the Associate of Arts and Associate of Science degrees was granted by the Higher Learning Commission within the last three years. s 3,500 students attend classes and activities housed in ten campus buildings as well as the Kehoe Center. The James W. Kehoe Center for Advanced Learning is a 163,000 square foot facility owned and operated by the College and located in Shelby, Ohio seven miles west of the main campus. It opened its doors in January 2002 and houses the College s Business, Industry and Technology credit programs and non-credit workforce offerings. In addition to the main campus and the Kehoe Center, the College offers courses in 4

5 four other facilities within its service area: The Urban Center located in downtown Mansfield, and outreach centers in Ashland, Bucyrus and Willard, Ohio. The campus also includes a Child Development Center, accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Tuition at is $90.90 per credit hour. The College employs 204 fulltime employees, of whom 67 are full-time faculty, and manages a $20 million operating budget. The College receives 36% of its general budget funding from the State of Ohio, student tuition accounts for the other 64% of general budget. D. Notification of Quality Checkup Visit and Solicitation of Third-Party Comment A Quality Checkup site visit to the institution was conducted November 17-19, In compliance with Commission requirements, the institution notified its constituencies and the public of this visit, solicited third-party comment to be sent directly to the Commission. There were no third party comments. E. Compliance With Federal Requirements The Quality Checkup team that conducted a site visit to the institution on November 17-19, 2010, examined evidence provided by the institution of its compliance with the Commission s federal compliance program. The Quality Checkup team concluded that the institution is in compliance with all federal requirements. F. Evidence of the Organization s Responsiveness to Previous Commission Concerns Regarding Fulfillment of the Criteria for Accreditation The Systems Appraisal Team concluded that presented evidence that it complies with each of the five Criteria for Accreditation and each of their Core Components (SA 2008, p. 6). The Quality Checkup Team concluded that the college provided evidence that it addressed strategic issues identified in the 2008 Systems Appraisal and that, the institution s approach to the issue, documentation, and performance were acceptable and comply with Commission and AQIP s expectations (QCU 2010, p. 7). II. Fulfillment of the Criteria for Accreditation CRITERION ONE: MISSION AND INTEGRITY. The organization operates with integrity to ensure the fulfillment of its mission through structures and processes that involve the board, administration, faculty, staff, and students. A. Evidence that Core Components are met. In response to a strategic issue raised in the 2008 Systems Appraisal (p. 6), NCSC has taken steps to address reviewer concerns about negative communication and empowerment of faculty and staff. As a result of key listening activities conducted by senior leadership, the college has modified the academic structure and created new positions that offer faculty more voice within their respective disciplines (QPS 2010, p. 6). In addition, the college is working on a comprehensive communications plan. This plan, done under the auspices of the President s Office and the Office of Institutional Advancement, engages faculty and staff 5

6 from throughout the institution and has the objective of creating new opportunities for institutional dialogue (QPS 2010, p. 7). NCSC recognizes the challenge of significant turnover in key leadership posts. The college has experienced turnover in the president s office, the vice president of learning, and two of three academic deans. Some positions have been filled on an interim basis for lengthy periods. Despite these issues, the college has continued to move forward with plans to improve professional development for faculty and staff and to increase access to those programs (QPS 2010, p. 3 and 7). Under the leadership of its new president, who took office in 2009, the college took steps to strengthen their strategic planning process including efforts to create meaningful metrics for measurement of plan activities and outcomes. The planning process engaged a number of cross function teams and included representation from all campus constituencies (QH 2011, p. 2-3). Although planning for the future is the primary topic of Criterion Two (below), the changes in the strategic planning process are listed here to demonstrate the college s obvious commitment to developing a broad-based engagement of all key constituencies in core activities. NCSC has developed and maintains key student and administrative support processes and sustains a variety of means for measuring the effectiveness of these operations. The college pays ongoing attention to student feedback as a means of identifying opportunities for improvement and to make sure that the college is maintaining its focus on student needs (SR 2008, p. 2, 32-33). The college provides current students, alumni, parents, high school counselors and other stakeholders frequent and varied opportunities to rate their satisfaction with NC State s program and services and to communicate unmet needs (SR 2008, p. 21). B. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components need organizational attention, but no specific Commission monitoring or reporting. C. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components require institutional attention and that actions taken and improvements achieved be described in the institution s Systems Portfolio before its next scheduled Systems Appraisal, to permit Commission follow-up. D. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components require Commission follow-up via declaration of a specific Action Project(s) and the submission of Annual Updates. Recommendation of the Panel: The Criterion is met, and no Commission follow-up is recommended. 6

7 CRITERION TWO: PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE. The organization s allocation of resources and its processes for evaluation and planning demonstrate its capacity to fulfill its mission, improve the quality of its education, and respond to future challenges and opportunities. A. Evidence that Core Components are met. NCSC utilizes strategic planning processes to align college programs and activities with institutional mission and stakeholder needs (SA 2008, p. 38). This process was recently updated and strengthened to reinforce the engagement of multiple campus and off-campus constituencies (QH 2011, p. 2-3). In response to a strategic issue concerning collection and management of key data (SA 2008, p. 7) NCSC has undertaken a number of activities designed to better support data collection, data management, and to support stronger alignment of data collection institution-wide. These steps include strengthening the Office of Institutional Research, providing extended training to key personnel within that office, and utilization of support from an Achieving the Dream data coach (QPS 2010, p. 9; QCU 2010, p. 6). NCSC has expended substantive effort to develop strong evaluation plans for activities and to train members of the college community in the use and deployment of key data in support of continuous improvement activities (QPS 2010, p. 9). In 2008 the Systems Appraisal team reported, The documented achievements of staff and faculty, including adjunct faculty, signal an institution s commitment to valuing lifelong learning and concern for employees (SA 2008, p. 7). Despite turnover in leadership and the attendant challenges associated with long-term interim appointments, the college has developed wide support for continual improvement processes. The Quality Checkup Team specifically noted that their meetings with faculty, staff, administration, and Trustees revealed support of continuous improvement and AQIP activities (QCU 2010, p. 8). B. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components need organizational attention, but no specific Commission monitoring or reporting. C. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components require institutional attention and that actions taken and improvements achieved be described in the institution s Systems Portfolio before its next scheduled Systems Appraisal, to permit Commission follow-up. D. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components require Commission follow-up via declaration of a specific Action Project(s) and the submission of Annual Updates. Recommendation of the Panel: The Criterion is met, and no Commission follow-up is recommended. 7

8 CRITERION THREE: STUDENT LEARNING AND EFFECTIVE TEACHING. The organization provides evidence of student learning and teaching effectiveness that demonstrates it is fulfilling its educational mission. A. Evidence that Core Components are met. NCSC has articulated student learning outcomes across general education and degree programs. Efforts to develop and sustain an assessment program in support of these objectives began in 2007 (SR 2008, p. 1). The college has continued to refine and strengthen the assessment process in support of student learning (QCU 2010, p. 6). Program faculty, directors, and department chairs annually review assessment results for the purpose of identifying opportunities for course and program improvement (SR 2008, p. 14). NCSC s Student Success Center engages students early in their college experience with special attention being given to identifying student needs and aligning those needs with available services (SR 2008, p. 13). Additional support services for students early in their college careers focus on the First Year Experience courses, meeting with career counselors, and identifying individual learning styles (SR 2008, p. 14). The college engaged in an AQIP Action Project (now retired) to improve student success in developmental education courses. This project was driven through collaboration with Achieving the Dream and the AQIP teams on campus. The project, although formally retired, is still active through the Development Education Initiative, a national effort being pioneered by 15 colleges including NCSC and funded by a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (QPS 2011, p. 3). In 2008, the Systems Portfolio Review team noted that the college assessment and data collection activities were not aligned or coordinated institution-wide (SR 2008, p. 7). Subsequently, the college took steps to address this strategic issue through realignment of the institutional research function, utilizing the services of a data coach, and implementation of a new information system (QCU 2010, p. 6). The college supports improved student learning through active professional development programs for faculty, full-time and adjunct. The Faculty Learning Communities (FLC) initiative began in 2008 and continues to support individual faculty learning as well as coordinating collective professional development activities (QPS 2010, p. 7-8). In addition, substantive professional development efforts have taken place under the umbrella of the Development Education Initiative (QPS 2010, p. 8). B. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components need organizational attention, but no specific Commission monitoring or reporting. C. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components require institutional attention and that actions taken and improvements achieved be described in the institution s Systems Portfolio before its next scheduled Systems Appraisal, to permit Commission follow-up. 8

9 D. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components require Commission follow-up via declaration of a specific Action Project(s) and the submission of Annual Updates. Recommendation of the Panel: The Criterion is met, and no Commission follow-up is recommended. CRITERION FOUR: ACQUISITION, DISCOVERY, AND APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE. The organization promotes a life of learning for its faculty, administration, staff, and students by fostering and supporting inquiry, creativity, practice, and social responsibility in ways consistent with its mission. A. Evidence that Core Components are met. In 2008, the Systems Appraisal team noted a wide range of opportunities for improvement in the institution s Category 4: Valuing People responses (SA 2008, p ). Since that time, the college has undertaken numerous initiatives to address these opportunities. The Quality Checkup team observed that NCSC is placing more emphasis on individual and unit development with noted increases in employee satisfaction (QCU 2010, p. 6). The report went on to describe activities supporting faculty mentoring including specific efforts to orient and mentor adjunct faculty (p. 6). NCSC has a current Action Project aimed at supporting adjunct faculty professional development. The Valuing Adjunct Team (VAT) administers a program offering professional development workshops to adjunct faculty, mentoring for adjunct faculty, and engages in a process of gathering continual feedback from adjunct faculty (QPS 2010, p. 4). In addition, the college has another Action Project focused on strategic professional development. Central to this project is the creation of individual professional development plans (IPDP) for all college employees. A cross-functional team has designed a program that engages HR resources, professional training, and supporting reporting of outcomes as part of the IPDP activity (QPS 2010, p. 5). As part of the institutional learning and improvement activities, the college is engaged in a third Action Project focused on integrating AQIP processes throughout the college. Responsibility for monitoring and leading AQIP activities has been centered in the Planning Advisory Council (PAC) which is a cross functional team including senior academic leaders. Under PAC leadership, the college has successfully retired some action projects and developed new methods of updating the college Systems Portfolio (QPS 2010, p. 5). B. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components need organizational attention, but no specific Commission monitoring or reporting. C. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components require institutional attention and that actions taken and improvements achieved be described in the institution s Systems Portfolio before its next scheduled Systems Appraisal, to permit Commission follow-up. 9

10 D. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components require Commission follow-up via declaration of a specific Action Project(s) and the submission of Annual Updates. Recommendation of the Panel: The Criterion is met, and no Commission follow-up is recommended. CRITERION FIVE: ENGAGEMENT AND SERVICE. As called for by its mission, the organization identifies its constituencies and serves them in ways both value. A. Evidence that Core Components are met. NCSC received new leadership in January of 2009 when Mr. Donald L. Plotts became North Central State College s fourth president. In the spring of 2009 during a College Board of Trustees retreat, the board re-dedicated itself to Carver ENDS Policy governance after receiving training from Miriam Carver. In the summer of 2010 during the annual College Board of Trustees retreat, the Board spent four days writing and refining College ENDS policy (QPS 2011, p. 2). In order to gather information about the needs of different stakeholder groups, a variety of surveys and other means are used. One example is the use of strategic planning to gather input from key stakeholders and incorporating their observations and suggestions into priorities and action plans (QPS 2011, p. 2-3; SP 2008, p. 36). NCSC also gathers information from organizations such as the Higher Learning Commission, the Ohio Board of Regents, the University System of Ohio, and academic program accreditation bodies. Regional and county visioning projects have been completed and gather information about the changing needs of stakeholders (SP 2008, p. 36). With the opening of the Urban Center (an educational outreach facility of the college located in downtown Mansfield), NCSC s training focus changed to include the intended audience of the city center of Mansfield. This audience includes non-profit agencies, various subdivisions of government offices, financial and insurance agencies, social service agencies, small business owners (SP 2008, p. 33). The College provides several days during the academic year when no classes are held and inservice programs are offered for faculty and staff. After each event a survey is taken and a standard question on the survey asks for input for future programs. A College-wide committee of faculty and staff plan each event based on feedback they have received and or solicited (SP 2008, p. 35). The relationship with institutions from which NCSC receives students continues to strengthen. The institution s commitment to a completion agenda, the definition of traditional college-goers has been broadened and transformed to include populations of individuals who are non-traditional or under-prepared students. This has required NCSC to build and nurture stronger relationships with their feeder institutions (SP 2008, p. 92). 10

11 NCSC is undertaking initiatives to gather, analyze data, and implement more frequent use of data-informed decision making. The College is also taking steps to strengthen infrastructure and process to aid gathering data related to assessment of student learning, curriculum review, delivery systems, and services (QPS 2010, p. 8; QCU 2010, p. 5-6). B. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components need organizational attention, but no specific Commission monitoring or reporting. C. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components require institutional attention and that actions taken and improvements achieved be described in the institution s Systems Portfolio before its next scheduled Systems Appraisal, to permit Commission follow-up. D. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components require Commission follow-up via declaration of a specific Action Project(s) and the submission of Annual Updates. Recommendation of the Panel: The Criterion is met, and no Commission follow-up is recommended. Summary of panel recommendations regarding fulfillment of the Criteria for Accreditation: The panel believes fulfills the Criteria for Accreditation. III. Participation in the Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) A. Comments and counsel on specific improvement projects The AQIP Action Projects identified encompass a range of initiatives that will assist the college in responding to recommendations in portfolio and site visit reports. NCSC has taken strategic steps to act upon the recommendations provided by previous Reviewers and Evaluators. Examples include the review and re-dedication to the Carver Model of governance, a significant effort to implement a strategic plan to guide future actions by the College, and major projects in the realm of data collection and management. (SR 2008; QCU 2010) The Review Team encourages NCSC to continue to focus on those projects directly related to supporting and advancing student learning. The Action Projects focused on developing and implementing program review procedures, increasing computer literacy, and establishing the tutor training program are directly related to improving the learning experience for students. (QPS 2010; QCU 2010, p 8; QH 2011, p. 4) B. Comments and counsel on key institutional processes and systems 11

12 This review team is impressed with the variety and scope of the initiatives highlighted in the Quality Program Summary (2010) and the Quality Highlights (2011) to aggressively move the college forward. These efforts make it clear to the review team that NCS is committed to continuous quality improvement embodied in the AQIP principles. Of specific note, the team would like to reinforce the comments of the Quality Checkup team when it said, Although efforts are in place to create a systematic process of assessing student learning that is included in the program review process, it has little faculty involvement. Assessment of student learning outcomes needs to be faculty driven. There needs to be clear roles and responsibilities outlined for student learning assessment (QCU 2010, p. 8). The college reports efforts to continue improvement of the assessment processes but little is said in the Quality Program Summary or the Quality Highlights about increased faculty involvement. The college is urged to continue efforts to align faculty more closely with these activities. C. Comments and counsel on the institution s culture of quality and its quality program or infrastructure. The review team encourages NCSC to stay the course of its multiple quality improvement initiatives. However, as with any complex organizational initiative, to give itself time to celebrate the accomplishments and prioritize the projects still in progress. The team members note that the college consistently demonstrates a commitment to improvement as evidenced through its ability to accept critical reviews and act positively to address the issues and concerns of peer reviewers. The college openly addressed the strategic issues raised in the review of its 2008 Systems Portfolio and has made commendable efforts towards resolving those issues. The actions of the college speak volumes to the strength of its stakeholders and their commitment to supporting and improving the college. It is evident to team members that the college has exerted significant efforts to address issues and concerns raised in the various AQIP review activities. These efforts are made more commendable because they occurred during periods of leadership turnover. Despite vacancies in key positions the college stakeholders continued to move forward and address opportunities for improvement. Summary of panel comments and counsel about the organization s commitment to continuous quality improvement and its participation in AQIP: North Central has moved forward in meaningful ways with a new President, a new strategic plan, and several operational projects. All of these initiatives will benefit the institution, faculty, and staff over time. While the college is in the process of re-making itself, it is encouraged to keep curriculum, faculty, and student learning firmly in the center of its improvement efforts. A consistent theme through AQIP reviews and documents has been the need to address negative communications and to bring all campus constituencies, most especially faculty members, closer to campus processes. Great progress has been made in this regard yet there is still work to be accomplished. The college is encouraged to continue efforts to collect and utilize data in decisions, to engage faculty in key processes, and to continue efforts to promote positive communications throughout 12

13 the organization. is to be commended for their employee s enthusiasm and commitment to making the institution a model in their community and region for continuous quality improvement to better serve their constituencies. 13