Extra

in 50 Words Or Less
A crisis is looming in the nations higher education system, a commission recently found. A panel of experts recommended the education system embrace a strategy of continuous innovation and quality improvement. The Academic Quality Improvement Process, an accreditation alternative for higher education institutions, may help stave off this crisis.

Credit
REcEnt data fRom the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development indicate the United States ranks 12th among major industrialized countries in higher education attainment.1 Several other countries are close behind. At the same time, data from the U.S. Department of Labor suggest postsecondary education will be more important than ever for workers hoping to fill the fastest-growing jobs in the new economy.2 In 2006, the Spellings Commissionnamed after thenSecretary of Education Margaret Spellingsissued a comprehensive report about the state of higher education in the United States called A Test of LeadershipCharting the Future of U.S. Higher Education.3 It was the cumulative work of several high-level college and industry leaders in the United States. Colleges, universities and accreditation institutions anxiously anticipated the results of the commissions yearlong study.

EDUCATION

How one accreditation agency can address higher educations quality crisis

by Ted Mattis and John W. Sinn

September 2009 QP 29

Change in higher education was long overdue, and conditions were critical, the commission reported.4 In tomorrows world, a nations wealth will derive from its capacity to educate, attract and retain citizens who are able to work smarter and learn fastermaking educational achievement ever more important for individuals and for society at large.5 The commissions findings (Table 1) and recommendations (Table 2) serve as a backdrop to the realities of quality issues in U.S. higher education today. Even though the commissions report was released three years ago, the issues and concerns it identified remain in the spotlight as the Obama administration sets its sights on improving the state of higher education and community colleges. One of the changes paramount to improving higher education, the commission believed, was that colleges and universities must embrace a culture of continuous innovation and quality improvement. The commission also
6

ensures colleges and universities are considered for federal and state investment dollars for continual operation and upkeep. Without accreditation, colleges and universities are forced to rely primarily on private money for ongoing operations and upkeep. Six regional accreditation agencies and several specialized accreditation agencies in the United States perform institutional accreditations. The largest is North Central Accreditation, with headquarters in Chicago, which serves as the accreditation body for degreegranting institutions of higher education in 19 states.8

academic Quality Improvement Process

Before the report was issued, the Higher Learning Commission of North Central Accreditation (HLC NCA) offered its member institutions an accreditation alternativecalled the Academic Quality Improvement Process (AQIP)based on continuous innovation and quality improvement principles. Including elements from Baldrige criteria, total quality management, continuous improvement, W. Edwards Demings 14 Points and ISO 9000, AQIP is divided into nine categories (see Table 3, p. 33) requiring participation from the subscribing college or university. In addition to these categories, AQIP audits compliance to the HLC NCA five criteria required for accredita-

emphasized, however, that accreditation bodies could play a pivotal role in re-engineering higher education.

accreditation one of the keys

Accreditation is the process by which a third-party body ensures a college or university meets established guidelines and standards as outlined by the U.S. Department of Education.7 In addition, accreditation

Spellings Commission findings / TABlE 1

finding Education is more important. What does the finding mean? In todays knowledge-driven society, higher education has never been more important for full participation in a technological, democratic, global society. Now more than ever, change is necessary.

Participation by all is Many Americans are not prepared to participate in and complete higher educationespecially underserved, an issue. nontraditional groups that are an ever-greater proportion of the population and a major source of new workers in the United States. Prohibitive costing issues. Broken financial-aid systems. Quality learning outcomes. Institutional performance accountability. R&D for new skill sets, policies. State subsidies are declining, tuition is increasing, and student costs are outpacing inflation and family income. Financing systems provide little incentive for institutions to take bold improvement steps, and erosion of public confidence seems inevitable. Financial-aid programs at federal, state, institutional and private levels are confusing, complex, inefficient, duplicative and often do not direct aid to students who truly need it. Need-based financial aid is not keeping pace with rising tuition. Even as we must increase quality in learning outcomes and the economic value of education, disturbing signs suggest we are moving the wrong way. This decreases the ability of institutions to produce citizens to lead and compete in the 21st century global marketplace. There is inadequate transparency and accountability for measuring institutional performance, which is more and more necessary to maintain public trust in higher education. Innovations in institutional capacity, effectiveness and productivity are impeded by out-of-touch governmental and institutional policies created for simpler workforce needs. More basic research is required to better understand new skill sets needed for the future.

30 QP www.qualityprogress.com

EDUCATION

Spellings Commission recommendations / TABlE 2

Recommendation What does the recommendation mean? More educational opportunity, Students need increased access to and success in higher education. Increased efforts must be access, success. committed to improve student preparation and persistence. Non-academic barriers must be removed and aid to low-income students increased. Restructure financial aid and costing systems. Performance-based accountability measures. Transform to a knowledge economy. lifelong higher education, continuous learning. Commit strategic resources to key knowledge areas. Student financial-aid systems must be restructured and new incentives created to improve measurement and management of costs and institutional productivity to reduce education costs and increase the ability of governments to finance education. Institutions must determine and implement serious measures and metrics to meet performance-based challenges. Measures and metrics should not be based on previous reputations and politics, but on a robust culture of accountability, transparency and change. Academic programs and institutions must transform to meet changes in a knowledge economy and use continuous innovation, quality improvement, new pedagogy, curricula and technologies to improve, particularly in science and mathematical literacy. Access to high-quality, affordable education and training must be continuous via national lifelong learning strategies to help everyone understand the importance of preparing for and participating in ongoing higher education. Increased federal investment is needed to compete globally. There must be a major commitment to attract the brightest minds and to create leaders of American innovation in strategic areas such as science, engineering, medicine and other knowledge-intensive professions.

tion, which are explained in Table 4 (p. 33). The AQIP accreditation path, along with adherence to HLC NCA guidelines, functions as a quality assurance system and a quality improvement tool to ensure compliance to the five accreditation criteria, followed closely by documented evidence of progress in the nine AQIP categories. Building on the HLC NCA strengths as defined in the five criteria, the nine AQIP categories offer an even greater level of detail for continuous improvement. HLC NCA accreditation systems can form the baseline for even greater robustness toward customer satisfaction and serving all stakeholders.

Point 14 states, Put everybody in the company to work to accomplish the transformation. The transformation is everybodys job.9 If the institution chooses to participate in AQIP, the date for reaccreditation is scheduled seven years ahead rather than the 10-year cycle for traditional reaccreditation. This allows the institution to participate in a full seven-year cycle of AQIP. An AQIP review panel evaluates an institutions application for participation and, based on several criteria, recommends the institution for acceptance in the AQIP. Look inside: Upon acceptance, the institution completes a preliminary self-assessment that provides evidence the organization has looked at itself holistically as a set of systems and processes, rather than a collection of offices, departments, and academic or administrative units. During the early stages, part of the strength in the process relates to the identification and correction of problems based on gap analysis of the application process. As with most quality improvement systems, the internal assessments and reviews in preparation for external review are one of the key strengths. AQIP is no exception, and the early stages provide opportunity for such actions. Although specific methods will vary by institution, participation in AQIP follows a distinctive path. Significantly, many of the steps and procedures are consistent with HLC NCA systems. Thus, much work already in

aQIP in action
The path to AQIP reaccreditation is a multi-step process. The institution must already be accredited by the HLC NCA through the conventional process and have had two comprehensive visits. Institutions are required to understand continuous quality improvement principles and AQIP. Here are steps to consider when heading down the AQIP path. Talk it through: Institutions interested in AQIP are encouraged to hold campuswide discussions to stimulate conversation and curiosity about the process, to understand the work involved and to see if this process for reaccreditation serves the needs of the campus and stakeholders. This is one of the 14 Points of the quality system management process outlined by Deming.

September 2009 QP 31

total AQiP / FIgURE 1

To participate in AQIP:

Correct gaps.

Submit application to Higher Learning Commission.

Application documentation.

Perform gap analysis.

No

Accepted? Yes Complete preliminary self-assessment. Submit self-assessment documentation.

Hold strategy forum develop strategy

Do three or four action projects one related to AQIP category 1.

File annual updates for review.

Submit systems portfolio for review.

Assemble systems portfolio.

Systems appraisal portfolio review.

Receive systems appraisal report.

Site visit quality checkup.

AQIP = Academic Quality Improvement Process

Reafrmation of accreditation.

place for HLC NCA also can be used for the AQIP. Figure 1 shows the total process as a process flow chart. Set strategy: Every institution must complete a strategy foruma facilitated peer review process designed to help it select, critically examine and commit to a set of strategies and action projects that will drive continuous quality improvement. The institution must create action projects designed to strengthen the institutions commitment to continuous improvement

and advance the institutions goals. Each institution concentrates on three or four action projects at a time. At least one action project relates directly to AQIP category 1, helping students learn. Institutions participating in AQIP file annual updates on the progress or completion of their action projects. During the first four years of participation, an organization assembles a systems portfolio. The systems portfolio consists of an organizational overview and details each of the major systems used to accomplish the organizations mission and vision. The institution answers questions related to context, process, results and improvements for each of the nine categories. The systems portfolio is designed to help the accredita-

Get iNVOLVed

Additional information about joining AQIP as a peer reviewer can be found on the Higher learning Commission North Central Accreditation website at www.aqip.org.

32 QP www.qualityprogress.com

EDUCATION

tion bureau, and the institution itself, understand key strengths and ambitions, challenges and conflicts the institution faces. Systems checkup: The next step is a comprehensive systems appraisal, which is designed to produce a report that reflects to the institution its maturity in each of the nine categories and provides an incubator for future action projects. During the seven-year cycle, AQIP requires a site visitcalled a quality checkupfrom two or more trained evaluators. Quality checkups occur in the last two years of the seven-year cycle and address the institutions compliance with the accreditation criteria. Finally, after the seven-year continuous improvement initiative, the organization is ready for its reaffirmation of accreditation. This is a summation of the current systems portfolio, action project results, systems appraisals, review of the five criteria for accreditation and any other interaction with AQIP that ultimately results in the reaffirmation of accreditation. The timing is such that the systems portfolio and action projects are reviewed every year. Every four years, a systems appraisal and strategy forum are conducted. Every seven years, a quality checkup and reaffirmation of accreditation are completed. The cycle, like every continuous improvement journey, starts againbuilding on the success of the past cycle and further refining the continuous improvement activities. Peer reviewers conduct the system appraisals, action project reviews and system portfolio reviews. These people may come from academia or the public and private sectors, and they are trained to provide insightful reviews and recommendations by the AQIP leadership team in biannual sessions. The inclusion and participation of non-academics in particular is considered key to the process, because quality systems knowledge from outside of academia

AQiP nine categories / TABlE 3

aQIP category 1. Helping students learn. 2. Accomplishing other distinct objectives. 3. Understanding students and other stakeholders needs. 4. Valuing people. Explanation How do we ensure students are learning? What support is provided, and how do we know it is working? What objectives are unique to a specific area of study or inquiry in the students major? Aside from students, who else are stakeholders, and how do we ensure their needs are being met? How do our policies, systems and procedures ensure and demonstrate we place the highest value on our people? How do we ensure consistent, effective leadership and communication in our community and for preparing students in the future? How do we engage all students, faculty and staff in supporting and enhancing institutional operations? What characteristics are identified and metrics used to measure our successes, and how are data collected, analyzed and documented? What policies, procedures and systems are in place to engage all in strategic planning for the future?

5. leading and communicating. 6. Supporting institutional operations. 7. Measuring effectiveness. 8. Planning continuous improvement.

9. Building collaborative What collaborative efforts have been built or are relationships. being built with our stakeholders, and how do we support and grow them? AQIP = Academic Quality Improvement Process

can be integrated objectively and unobtrusively. The teams and individual reviews are led by senior team leaders who provide counseling and mentoring to junior reviewers. The mentoring cycle repeats itself, building and strengthening the technical capabilities of the peer review corps.

addressing the quality crisis

As shown in the flow chart and description of main

HLC NCA five criteria for accreditation / TABlE 4

HLc nca criteria 1. Mission and integrity. 2. Preparing for the future. 3. Student learning and effective teaching. 4. Acquisition, discovery and application of knowledge. 5. Engagement and service. Explanation What is the institutional mission, and how do we ensure the mission is accomplished? How do we ensure our students are adequately prepared to meet the challenges of the future? What teaching strategies are used to ensure learning is occurring, and how do we gauge this as outcomes? How do we ensure more than mere memorization of facts and figures occurs based on discovery and application of knowledge? How do we ensure lifelong engagement of our students and faculty in a community of service?

HlC NCA = Higher learning Commission of North Central Accreditation

September 2009 QP 33

EDUCATION

Addressing the quality crisis in higher education / TABlE 5

Spellings commission recommendation More educational opportunity, access, success. HLc nca criteria aQIP category aQIP process step and possible opportunity Application, strategy forum, gap analysis, quality checkup. Strategy forum, gap analysis, action projects, quality checkup. Strategy forum, gap analysis, action projects, quality checkup. Action projects, systems portfolio and appraisal, quality checkup. Spellings commission finding in context of aQIP and other relationships Education is more important: AQIP places this at the forefront of its institutional mission and considers it the main driver for all. Participation by all is an issue: Structure of institution is pushed to consider future, financial aid and costs reconsidered. Prohibitive costing issues: Performance is tied to student learning and assessed as potential gaps for improvement. Broken financial-aid systems: Transformation can only come through new costing and aid systems. Quality learning outcomes: New outcomes based on quality will change peoples lives continuously.

Mission and integrity.

Understanding students and other stakeholders needs. Supporting institutional operations, leading and communicating. Helping students learn, valuing people, measuring effectiveness.

Restructure financial Preparing for the future. aid and costing systems. Performance-based accountability measures. Student learning and effective teaching.

Transform to a Acquisition, discovery Accomplishing knowledge economy. and application of other distinctive knowledge. objectives. lifelong higher education, continuous learning. Commit strategic resources in key knowledge areas. Engagement and service. Mission and integrity, preparing for the future.

Building collaborative Action projects, systems relationships. portfolio and appraisal, quality checkup. Planning continuous improvement, measuring effectiveness.

Strategy forum, quality Institutional performance checkup, reaffirmation of accountability: Strategic planning accreditation. continuously drives resource allocation and measures of success. R&D for new skill sets and policies: New skills are transformational, and a knowledge-based economy requires collaborations.

Transform to a Preparing for the knowledge economy. future.

Measuring Strategy forum, quality effectiveness, checkup, reaffirmation of building collaborative accreditation. relationships.

AQIP = Academic Quality Improvement Process HlC NCA = Higher learning Commission of North Central Accreditation

processes, the innovative AQIP approach to reaccreditation holds much promise in addressing many of the recommendations made by the Spellings report. AQIP can be one possible systematic approach to help ensure innovation and continuous quality improvement in the nations higher education system. Table 5 provides a matrix that combines the Spellings Commission findings and recommendations, HLC NCA criteria and AQIPs nine categories. All of this is provided in a context of relationships that must be built around quality systems and improvement strategies during a long-term process. While it may be clear to quality professionals that these relationships and systems can be a foundation for long-term improvement in higher education, the true test must be made by academic leaders themselves. QP
reFereNCeS ANd NOteS
1. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Education at a Glance 2005, tables A3.1 and C2.2. 2. U.S. Department of Labor, Monthly Labor Review, November 2005, www.bls.

gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/contents.htm. 3. The Spellings Commission, A Test of LeadershipCharting the Future of U.S. Higher Education U.S. Department of Education, September 2006, www. ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/pre-pub-report.pdf. 4. Ibid, p. xi. 5. Ibid, p. xii. 6. Ibid, p. 25. 7. A detailed outline of the U.S. Department of Educations accreditation process can be found at www.ed.gov/print/admins/finaid/accred/ accreditation.html. 8. North Central Accreditation serves as the accreditation body for degree-granting institutions of higher education in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming, including programs of the Navajo Nation and distance education programs within these institutions. 9. Rafael Aguayo, Dr. Deming, The American Who Taught The Japanese About Quality, Fireside, 1990, p. 213. TED MATTIS is the quality manager for Honeywell Aerospace, Aircraft Landing Systems in South Bend, IN. He is also a peer reviewer for AQIP. He is a senior member of ASQ and is an ASQ-certified quality engineer, quality manager and Six Sigma Black Belt. Mattis is also the past chair of the Northern Michigan Section. He holds an MBA in operations management from the University of Michigan and is a student in the Technology Management doctoral program at Indiana State University, concentrating on quality systems. JOHN W. SINN is professor of quality systems at Bowling Green State University (BGSU) in Bowling Green, OH. He received his doctorate in technology from West Virginia University in Morgantown. Sinn is a senior member of ASQ, past chair of the Toledo Section and a founder of the student branch at BGSU.

34 QP www.qualityprogress.com