Agenda Items for Quality Checkup visits

[Spangehl]

What questions should the AQIP Reviewers making these visits raise with the institution? In what formats -- who should be present? how should the discussion be conducted?

We want to make these visits as valuable as possible to instituttions, so it is critical for us to identify the topcis (and specific questions) that should be discussed, and knowing who should participate in these discussions. Perhaps we can generate from this Forum a selection of disucssion questions and meeting formats, a menu from which the institution can select those that will benefit it most.

[Merlin Lewis]

I think there is clearly an opportunity to develop a campus visit that will differ sharply from the typical PEAQ visit. PEAQ visits, with the natural emphasis on maintaining accreditation, limits the opportunities for teams to be perceived as resources. For example, during campus visits HLC teams conduct a series of relatively short interviews, then communicate primarily among themselves about the meaning of what they have heard. The relationship between the team and the institution is usually formal and somewhat distant. This is understandable because the HLC team is seen as having the “keys to the kingdom.”

This distance is most clearly demonstrated in the exit meeting. Communication is one-way, restricted, and quick. I don’t doubt that previous experiences led the HLC to design these exists in this way, but it limits the opportunity for the institution to learn from the review. C-Es are able to provide consulting advice in individual meetings and in the advancement section of the report, but the opportunity to “make meaning” from a thorough discussion limits learning.

The AQIP campus visit could be very different. Because AQIP institutions must apply to participate, and, if continuous improvement principles are part of the culture, it is unlikely they will be overly concerned about accreditation issues. An AQIP campus visit could be quite different:

1) Rather than the HLC team collecting discussing information primarily among themselves, this step could be shared with institutional faculty and staff. That is, HLC teams could collect and interpret data collaboratively.
2) The exit could be collaborative as well, with a focus on learning and problem solving that could be effective and energizing.

[Winnie Black]

I agree with Merlin. I would like to think of the exit interview more like a collaborative working session where actual planning, discussion, brainstorming, and mapping of future processes could happen. The visit should be a revitalizing and reenergizing experience; a chance to refocus and rechannel the energy of the organization. Hopefully the institution will develop a list of topics that they would like to share with the visitors (bragging rights and topics they want assistance with). It would be nice right before or early in the visit to have a Quality Day very much like an Assessment Day where people across the institution could share quality projects with one another.

I think it would also be helpful to develop a list of FAQs that institutions have about the AQIP experience that could be shared with others. I think that if an institution is struggling with an issue, it might be good to pair them with an institution that has mastered or successfully dealt with that issue. We mentor faculty with faculty and students with students. Why not mentor institutions more with each other. This is somewhat the concept of the Assessment Institute. This mentoring could come out of the check-up visit experience.

[gaustin]

I suggest that coupled with the stakeholder comment and complaint review that is required for the visit that part of the collaborative discussion would include students, community members, and in particular representatives from any partners the school is using in the portfolio comparable results sections of categories. For example, if the school has identified a partner outside of higher education to compare quality systems and results with; and uses this comparison as evidence of results in their portfolio--representatives from this other organization could participate in a portion of the collaborative discussions during the visit. I believe these other partners could enrich the conversation allowing all participants to learn from the experience.

Gwladys Austin
Vice President Institutional Services & Technology

[Dwight Smith]

The Quality Checkup team should meet with the institution's community as suggested by all previously. What would be important during these discussions with the institution's community members is to discern whether the institution is engaged in quality improvement by checking and acting on results. It would also be useful to the Quality Checkup team to know based on the sytems portfolios appraisals to date if most institutions are proficient in a category. If the team can provide information of best practices or examples of institutions that are accomplished, commendable, or outstanding in a category it would cause the visit to be more consultative.

[MaryHoy]

The previous responses are all very thoughtful and I fully support the suggestions made. I am thinking that perhaps the institution, after receiving their System Appraisal reports would select those areas requiring additional consultation and request AQIP to send invidiuals that could assist them in thinking through quality initiatives that would assist their progress. I invision these visits as very collegial, with time spent with all appropriate constituencies at the insitution, rather than discussing with teams. Perhaps the team members would be assigned to only one or two areas where they had the expertise to serve as consultant.

I believe our challenge is to make this a visit that everyone looks forward to with anticipation.

[lheiland]

Mary's description of a Quality Visit is pretty much identical to the vision that I had.
I view this as an opportunity to provide feedback and supportive guidance in areas where the institution might be struggling. It is so difficult to present a complete snapshot of what the insititution is doing within the limitations of the written portfolio but this visit would allow the insitution to ask probative questions in areas that they feel they need the most assistance. It can also be used to provide the resource support for additional questions and concerns, guidance and resources for training and support.
Insititutions that have made the conscious decision to go the "AQIP route" are concerned about taking the next step on the quality journey. This process will provide much more of a supportive and mentoring aspect to the process that the written report following the portfolio review does.

[crain]

I whole-heartedly applaud the vision for "a new type of accreditation" visit and like the idea that an institution look forward to it, enjoy it, and "look back on it as a 'turning point' in their institutional history."

Having said the above (and agreeing with comments already made), I would suggest that a good starting point for conversation would be the Principles of High Performance Organizations. For example, what is your vision and mission? How has this changed in the last years? How do you gather, understand, interpret, and weigh your diverse and distinctive stakeholders' perspectives?

Another example: What is your decision-making structure, especially as related quality improvements? How do you draw on the expertise and practical experience of your employees? How do you build consensus in your decision-making? How do you develop your leadership and plan for succession?

Another: How have you integrated your institution's mission, goals, and directions into the institution's overall culture, and how do you use this understanding to inform individual work goals and decision-making strategies?

Still another: What makes your institution unique in the way it makes student learning central to continuous improvement? How do you garner enthusiastic commitment to organizational and personal learning as the route to continuous improvement? How do you gauge your students' and the institution's progress toward clearly identified objective?

Focusing on the Principles of High Performance Organizations would lead naturally into discussion of Categories in the Systems Portfolio. The nature of these principles leads to a positive interaction and emphasis upon improvement.

I know we've called this a "Quality Checkup Visit," and overall, I like emphasizing quality; I have a little more difficulty with "checkup" due to connotations. If we keep this title, then it's important for us to have institutions tell us what they envision and want from this checkup. I know that's our vision and intent, so I'm hoping we encourage dialogue, institutional participation in telling us ahead of time what the institution wants from the visit, and emphasize the two-way learning that occurs as the result of this visit.

[william.lindroth@mstc.edu]

I find myself agreeing with the previous suggestions on how we might design a useful campus visit for reaccreditation. We might begin with the intended purpose(s) of an AQIP visit. The old style visits seemed to be designed around the premise that the most critical aspect of the visit was the conclusion that the team reached about an intitution's performance on a pre-determined set of standards. As a result, what the team had to say was at least as important as what a college had to say, and sometimes a team or two may have talked better than they listened.

Let's adopt a process where team listening skills are paramount. I recommned that the AQIP visits (which is a name that we might consider for these events) be considered one of the means of constructive communication between an institution and the Commission. After a team "checks the boxes" the the Department of Education requires, the primary function should be to listen and gather information on the consultation servies that the institution would find useful. It may be that a member of the visit team is qualified to assist with a particular question. However, given the small number of team members and the complexity of most colleges and universities, it is likely as not that it will be necessary for the team to relay the requests of the institution back to the Commission for additional follow-up. This process could help move the Commission further toward a role of consultative support for continuous improvement.

[wellbornl@evangel.edu]

Like most of us, I am excited about this new kind of visit and think the proposed structure and components are on target. I absolutely agree we should make these visits positive, revitalizing and reenergizing as has been suggested, but I don’t think there is anything innately wrong with allowing institutions to feel some pressure – or more accurately – some accountability to document the things set forth in the portfolios.

Having served on three systems portfolio review teams and two years as an annual update reviewer, there are questions I would like to ask about some action projects I’ve reviewed and the contents of some portfolios.

The challenge I see is finding the balance between positioning the visit as an informal, personal and friendly one with our responsibility of affirming the things we have been told. Something like an “AQIP Affirmation Visit” might work.

[Gloria Dohman]

I agree that setting the tone as consultants would benefit the institutions. It has been my experience that the informal meetings the team members have in the traditional process are the most beneficial for both the team members and the college community (as opposed to the exit interview).

How do we get institutions to feel safe enough to be forthcoming about their shortfalls so that they are not afraid it will come back to haunt them later? Can they identify the "root cause" of their issues and ask for pertient help without looking "weak?" For instance, if leadership and strategic planning are major issues, would the administration feel threatened? How about addressing "top down" management styles in an AQIP environment? etc., etc.,

Because of the brevity of the portfolio, (which I like) the visits will enable appraisers to ask questions that were not answered or not answered completely within the portfolio. For that reason, I think it would be beneficial to the institution to have one of the system portfolio appraisers on the team that visits the institution.

[Spangehl]

The discussion in this thread, and our experience in doing four pilot Quality Checkup visits during the spring of 2005-06, led us to pay close attention to setting the proper climate, tone, or atmosphere during the visit. The new Guide devotes much space to this, but AQIP is anxious to make sure these visits don't fall into old ruts. So please contribute other ideas to make sure the tone comes out the way it should.

[gaustin]

I like the idea of focusing on setting the proper climate, tone, or atmosphere of the visit. I learned a great deal during my first visit both from the individuals at the college and from my AQIP team members. We listened to the college participants, asked questions, and encouraged them to examine where they were in the AQIP journey. We also discussed what the next steps for the college were and how they anticipated moving to an even greater level of continuous quality improvement. I believe the visit and discussions helped the participants to refocus on quality systems, how to further expand participation, and acknowledge the excellent progress made to that point.

By providing a positive response to their successes and facilitating their discussions on what comes next, I think we played a part of helping the college generate new energy towards assessment and improvement.

Gwladys Austin
Mid Michigan Community College

[pheineman]

In preparing for our October Quality Check-Up, we modeled our agenda after Western Technical College’s successful site visit. The proposed agenda was sent in advance to the site visit team and the HLC for their comment as soon as we received our Evaluation Summary Sheet (ESS) from the HLC. An overview of AQIP (and the Quality Check-Up in particular) along with the agenda is being presented to the faculty at their development day this week (one month prior to the site visit). The final agenda will be posted to our web site and distributed internally through our newsletter. Invitations are being distributed based on the participation in the schedule.

The first day focuses on the institutional profile review, accreditation issues follow-up and federal compliance review, and concludes with a visit to one of our satellite locations for confirmation that facilities and operations at our off-campus sites meet Commission expectations.

The second day begins with a Quality Council breakfast followed by the Systems Portfolio Clarification/Verification and Systems Appraisal Follow-up. We prepared a separate document to respond to the accreditation and category issues identified in the Systems Appraisal Feedback Report. You can view the report and response at: http://www.bellevue.edu/aqip/appraisal.asp .
The remainder of the day consists of separate conversation sessions with staff, in-class conversations with students, luncheon with the Board and other key stakeholders, and with faculty.

The third day is a summary of findings from the site visit team to the leadership, faculty and staff.

Let me know if you would like a copy of our agenda. I will be happy to email you our template.

[pthareja]

pheineman
Location: Bellevue University ,


Sir,
Yes it would be a good help to initiate the kinda self assessment /self preparation.

I am a QMS auditor and have visited some academic institutions :colleges/ schools. The process has generally be involving, finding sources of continual improvents and educating how new / required things may be implemented. The need to tailor make requirements is interesting and satisfying.

The agenda in QMS auditing is more stricktly scheduled, and in the company of nonacademic auditors is not very flexible.

The posting may not have been in line because of time pressure elsewhere!

the template may kindly be sent to pthareja@yahoo.com or posted here for all of visiors.

priyavrat thareja
www.thareja.com

[cbcrawford]

Like many other institutions, we hosted our QCV in late January-early February. I can simply recount our experience and share a little feedback that I received from campus stakeholders.

In terms of preparation, I was a little shocked by the detail required in the compliance reporting component. During the QCV training this aspect was downplayed, but in getting ready for the visit I would not advise such a laissez-faire approach. There are a variety of data points that must be put together in a report. Some of these data points may well take a week or so to get from your campus reps. This aspect needs to be planned 6 - 8 weeks in advance.

Working the the QCV to create a schedule was pleasant. I think that this is as much a function of the immaturity of the process as anything. Our schedule was not revolutionary - it was predicated on our need to further strategic initiatives as well as give the QCV a chance to meet with campus leadership, faculty, and students. I felt (and I think the visitors did also) that two days was not enough - but I'm not sure that three would have been enough either.

I felt that we worked them hard. More than likely we treated it more like a specialized accrediation visit (with our focus on the strategic aspects/QI focus of the campus rather than just one program under review) and I think that this worked well. But there was still not enough time to develop answers to all their second-order questions.

I think the entire campus was ready to see some limited "recommendations", "findings", "conclusions", or something along that line. I felt that the QC team should have had the ability to make comment on strategic direction and alignment of campus resources to those ends. We are not in receipt of our QCV report so I cannot specifically comment on the entire value of the visit.

Is it fair to say that I think that the process can be improved?