Document 13241190

March 15, 2013

Michael A. Lanser, President

Lakeshore Technical College

1290 North Ave.

Cleveland, WI 53015

Dear Dr. Lanser:

As you are aware, Lakeshore Technical College is a long-‐time participant in the Higher

Learning Commission’s Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP). We at the

Commission appreciate your institution’s participation in AQIP, and we hope that the program has met your institution’s quality improvement needs in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

It is with an eye toward the future that I write to you today. As you know, your institution submitted its Systems Portfolio in November 2012 (per our established schedule), and it did so as part of our Systems Appraisal pilot project. Since last fall, the appraisal process has unfolded with a team of peer reviewers identifying your institution’s

“strengths” and “opportunities” in relation to the nine AQIP categories. Consistent with past appraisals, we think you will find the team’s comments instructive.

Less clear, perhaps, will be the team’s feedback in relation to the Commission’s Criteria for Accreditation and core components. Although appraisal teams have been asked for many years to consider the criteria and core components by means of a cross-‐walk, the rigor of this portion of the team’s review increased last fall as part of our pilot. This increased scrutiny came about with the implementation of the new criteria, along with a new AQIP requirement that appraisal teams indicate whether the criteria and each core component are:

•

“strong, clear, and well-‐presented”;

•

“adequate but could be improved”; or

•

“unclear or incomplete.”

In the spirit of the Systems Appraisal process, we chose these phrases deliberately to enable a proactive review of the criteria and core components so that any concerns can be corrected prior to reaffirmation of accreditation. We consider these an effective early warning system.

Please note, however, that at the point of reaffirmation, the terminology will shift to be consistent across all HLC Pathways (AQIP, Open, and Standard). At reaffirmation, teams will determine whether the criteria and core components are: “met,” “met with concerns,” or “not met.” A finding of “not met” at the time of reaffirmation will result in a sanction recommendation, no matter the institution’s pathway. In light of this significant change in

Commission policy, we consider the early warning system described above—a system that

is embedded within the portfolio and appraisal processes—important to the ongoing success of AQIP institutions.

With that distinction stated, and in light of the Systems Appraisal Team Report for your institution, an additional requirement is now necessary. In instances where the appraisal team has indicated that a core component is either “adequate but could be improved” or

“unclear or incomplete,” we are requiring that your institution address these areas in its

Quality Program Summary Report—a document that is prepared in preparation for the upcoming Quality Checkup. (You may also, at your discretion, address them sooner in the institution’s response to the Systems Appraisal Team Report but this is not required.) We ask that you address these items in your Quality Program Summary Report because that document will be of central importance to the Checkup Visit team as it prepares to visit your campus. We want the team to be able to assist your institution effectively, and we ask that your completed Quality Program Summary Report be limited to 20 pages.

In stating this requirement, we recognize that your institution may have already additional evidence that didn’t make it into the Systems Portfolio or that relevant evidence may have been touched upon but not featured due to space constraints. Whatever the circumstance, our aim is to assist your institution by means of this early warning system and to capitalize upon the expertise of peer reviewers during the Quality Checkup. Please know that your institution’s accredited status is not affected by this follow-‐up. There is nothing in this current review process that requires Commission follow-‐up through any decision-‐making body. Again, the aim is to address proactively any gaps or issues so that they do not present problems later.

We also recognize that this new approach toward reviewing the criteria, as piloted, may not have been communicated as clearly as we may have wished. Thus your suggestions for improvement are critical as we look to revise this process further in the coming months.

Our aim is to carry forward the historical continuous quality improvement focus of the

Systems Portfolio and to provide a robust Systems Appraisal report that contributes to your institution’s quality processes and also provides a means by which any compliance concerns can be remedied prior to reaffirmation. I urge you and your team to review your report carefully and then to contact your staff liaison (copied below) with questions or concerns. Please also share your suggestions during the upcoming Annual Conference and the AQIP Colloquium. Of course, a simple telephone call is also welcome any time.

Thank you again for your participation in AQIP and for your thoughtful guidance as we move forward.

Sincerely,

Eric V. Martin, D.A.

Vice President for Accreditation Relations cc: Nikki Kiss, ALO

Dr. Jeff Rosen, VP Accreditation Relations

2

S

YSTEMS

A

PPRAISAL

F

EEDBACK

R

EPORT in response to the Systems Portfolio of

L

AKESHORE

T

ECHNICAL

C

OLLEGE

March 12, 2013

230 South LaSalle Street, Suite 7500

Chicago, Illinois 60604 www.AQIP.org

AQIP@hlcommission.org

800-621-7440

S YSTEMS A PPRAISAL F EEDBACK R EPORT

In response to the Systems Portfolio of

L

AKESHORE

T

ECHNICAL

C

OLLEGE

March 12, 2013

Table of Contents

Elements of the Feedback Report .................................................................................................................1

Reflective Introduction and Executive Summary .........................................................................................3

Strategic Challenges .......................................................................................................................................6

AQIP Category Feedback .............................................................................................................................8

Helping Students Learn ..........................................................................................................................8

Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives ........................................................................................13

Understanding Students' and Other Stakeholders’ Needs ....................................................................14

Valuing People .....................................................................................................................................16

Leading and Communicating ...............................................................................................................19

Supporting Institutional Operations .....................................................................................................20

Measuring Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................22

Planning Continuous Improvement ......................................................................................................24

Building Collaborative Relationships ..................................................................................................27

Accreditation Issues ....................................................................................................................................29

Quality of Systems Portfolio .......................................................................................................................38

Using the Feedback Report .........................................................................................................................39

Lakeshore Technical College

Systems Appraisal Feedback Report

March 12, 2013

E LEMENTS OF Lakeshore Technical College’s F EEDBACK R EPORT

Welcome to the Systems Appraisal Feedback Report . This report provides AQIP’s official response to an institution’s Systems Portfolio by a team of peer reviewers (the Systems Appraisal Team). After the team independently reviews the institution’s portfolio, it reaches consensus on essential elements of the institutional profile, strengths and opportunities for improvement by AQIP Category, and any significant issues related to accreditation. These are then presented in three sections of the Systems Appraisal

Feedback Report : “Strategic Challenges Analysis,” “AQIP Category Feedback,” and “Accreditation

Issues Analysis .” These components are interrelated in defining context, evaluating institutional performance, surfacing critical issues or accreditation concerns, and assessing institutional performance.

Ahead of these three areas, the team provides a “Reflective Introduction” followed closely by an

“Executive Summary.” The appraisal concludes with commentary on the overall quality of the report and advice on using the report. Each of these areas is overviewed below.

It is important to remember that the Systems Appraisal Team has only the institution’s Systems Portfolio to guide its analysis of the institution’s strengths and opportunities for improvement. Consequently the team’s report may omit important strengths, particularly if the institution were too modest to stress them or if discussion or documentation of these areas in the Systems Portfolio were presented minimally.

Similarly the team may point out areas of potential improvement that are already receiving wide-spread institutional attention. Indeed it is possible that some areas recommended for potential improvement have since become strengths rather than opportunities through the institution’s ongoing efforts. Recall that the overarching goal of the Systems Appraisal Team is to provide an institution with the best possible advice for ongoing improvement.

The various sections of the Systems Appraisal Feedback Report can be described as follows:

Reflective Introduction & Executive Summary : In these first two sections of the System’s

Appraisal Feedback Report , the team provides summative statements that reflect its broad understanding of the institution and the constituents served (Reflective Introduction), and also the team’s overall judgment regarding the institution’s current performance in relation to the nine AQIP

Categories (Executive Summary). In the Executive Summary, the team considers such factors as: robustness of process design; utilization or deployment of processes; the existence of results, trends, and comparative data; the use of results data as feedback; and systematic processes for improvement

Academic Quality Improvement Program, the Higher Learning Commission.

This report may be reproduced and distributed freely by Lakeshore Technical College.

1



March 12, 2013 of the activities that each AQIP Category covers. Since institutions are complex, maturity levels may vary from one Category to another.

Strategic Challenges Analysis: Strategic challenges are those most closely related to an institution’s ability to succeed in reaching its mission, planning, and quality improvement goals. Teams formulate judgments related to strategic challenges and accreditation issues (discussed below) through careful analysis of the Organizational Overview included in the institution’s Systems Portfolio and through the team’s own feedback provided for each AQIP Category. These collected findings offer a framework for future improvement of processes and systems.

AQIP Category Feedback: The Systems Appraisal Feedback Report addresses each AQIP Category by identifying (and also coding) strengths and opportunities for improvement. An S or SS identifies strengths, with the double letter signifying important achievements or capabilities upon which to build. Opportunities are designated by O , with OO indicating areas where attention may result in more significant improvement. Through comments, which are keyed to the institution’s Systems

Portfolio, the team offers brief analysis of each strength and opportunity. Organized by AQIP

Category, and presenting the team’s findings in detail, this section is often considered the heart of the

Feedback Report .

Accreditation Issues Analysis: Accreditation issues are areas where an institution may have not yet provided sufficient evidence that it meets the Commission’s Criteria for Accreditation . It is also possible that the evidence provided suggests to the team that the institution may have difficulties, whether at present or in the future, in satisfying the Criteria . As with strategic challenges, teams formulate judgments related to accreditation issues through close analysis of the entire Systems

Portfolio with particular attention given to the evidence that the institution provides for satisfying the various core components of the Criteria . For purposes of consistency, AQIP instructs appraisal teams to identify any accreditation issue as a strategic challenge as well.

2

Quality of Report & Its Use: As with any institutional report, the Systems Portfolio should work to enhance the integrity and credibility of the organization by celebrating successes while also stating honestly those opportunities for improvement. The Systems Portfolio should therefore be transformational, and it should provide external peer reviewers insight as to how such transformation may occur through processes of continuous improvement. The AQIP Categories and the Criteria for

Accreditation serve as the overarching measures for the institution’s current state as well as its proposed future state. As such, it is imperative that the Portfolio be fully developed, that it adhere to





March 12, 2013 the prescribed format, and that it be thoroughly vetted for clarity and correctness. Though decisions about specific actions rest with each institution following this review, AQIP expects every institution to use its feedback to stimulate cycles of continual improvement and to inform future AQIP processes.

R EFLECTIVE I NTRODUCTION & E XECUTIVE S UMMARY F OR L AKESHORE T ECHNICAL

C OLLEGE

The following consensus statement is from the System Appraisal Team’s review of the institution’s

Systems Portfolio Overview and its introductions to the nine AQIP Categories. The purpose of this reflective introduction is to highlight the team’s broad understanding of the institution, its mission, and the constituents that is serves.

Lakeshore is a part of the Wisconsin Technical College System (WTCS) and was first accredited in 1977.

The College became an AQIP College in 2000 and has recently joined the Continuous Quality

Improvement Network (CQIN). Lakeshore has succinctly described their journey from initial accreditation to continuous quality improvement, demonstrating a high level of self-awareness and willingness to own areas for further improvement and growth. Lakeshore has a strategic opportunity to advance its processes from reactive and systematic to aligned and integrated.

The following are summary comments on each of the AQIP Categories crafted by the Appraisal Team to highlight Lakeshore Technical College’s achievements and to identify challenges yet to be met.

• Category 1 – Helping Students Learn – In the Category Overview, Lakeshore stated that the

College has developed an Academic Master Plan with the theme of “Student Success at Our

Core.” However, through the category narrative on Helping Students Learn, there is not a single reference to the Academic Master Plan, or to how the institution is embedding student success at its core through its processes, review and analysis of its results, and implementation of improvements. Lakeshore has developed nine student learning outcomes that are to be assessed at the program level; however, not all programs have direct assessments developed for these outcomes. While Lakeshore is undoubtedly undertaking a large number of assessment activities to ensure student learning, the institution lacks an aligned and integrated process for collecting assessment data, analyzing results, and utilizing those results to make improvements across all levels of the institution.



3



March 12, 2013

• Category 2: Other Distinctive Objectives - Lakeshore’s main focus in accomplishing other distinctive objectives has been in the area of workforce and economic development through programs such as the Dislocated Worker Response Team and other efforts of Workforce

Solutions. The College has also developed a strong response to the immediate workforce needs of its community. Workforce development and economic development are tied to the strategic plan and benchmarked within the WTCS. The College has begun building alumni relationships.

Lakeshore could benefit by developing detailed descriptions of the processes it follows in accomplishing its other distinctive objectives, including feedback from internal and external stakeholders.

• Category 3: Understanding Students’ and Other Stakeholders’ Needs - Lakeshore gathers input from students, staff, and committees through surveys, focus groups, and direct feedback. The

College follows a well-defined process for students from pre-enrollment to outcome. However,

Lakeshore does not appear to be closing the loop on the plan-do-check-act process. Data is gathered on student satisfaction but it is not clear how the data is used to develop plans for improvement or if the plans are assessed to determine their level of success. For example, in 3R4

Lakeshore provides data illustrating the change in employer satisfaction with graduate skills, but it is not clear if changes were implemented that led to an increase in employer satisfaction. Where anecdotal evidence is provided, such as in 3P4 regarding how relationships are built and maintained with key stakeholders, there do not appear to be processes to systematically collect and analyze data, address issues, and improve or enhance programs and services. The College would also benefit from communicating the data throughout the College so all employees are aware of student and stakeholder needs, and can better support them.

• Category 4: Valuing People - While Lakeshore sets professional improvement targets at both the

College and individual employee levels, indicating that the College has developed a culture of valuing people, the College recognizes its desire to take a more systematic approach to employee development and talent identification. It has a goal to focus on a succession-planning. Lakeshore has a robust recruitment and training process, with over 155 employees participating in Lean

Office principles. Employees are assigned formal mentors as part of a two-year training program.

Lakeshore could benefit by identifying areas of improvement based on feedback from its Campus

Quality Survey. Data based decision making would assist the College with advancing its opportunities for valuing people.



4



March 12, 2013

• Category 5: Leading and Communicating - The Leadership Team at Lakeshore appears to hold the majority of the responsibility for its current strategic planning activities. The College should be sure that inputs from all constituents are considered in its processes, and that others are included when possible in development and implementation of actions related to institutional strategies. Incorporating feedback from all stakeholder groups in the strategic planning process provides the College with an opportunity to develop its planning process with a focus on the

AQIP Principles of High Performance Institutions, including developing abilities in others who might hold future leadership roles.

• Category 6: Supporting Institutional Operations - The College has in place processes and measurements that are followed by specific areas. Individual managers appear to be addressing the daily operations at Lakeshore without a clear process defined to support College-wide collaboration and promote closer coordination among departments/units. Lakeshore would benefit from tying its plans to support operational needs to its strategic plan. It might be beneficial for the

College to have clear processes defined that support the strategic plan. Although the College states that targets are set annually, it is unclear what areas these targets address and what the involvement of support staff is in developing these targets.

• Category 7: Measuring Effectiveness - The Campus Quality Survey shows the College has made gains in shifting culture around data measurement and analysis. The College is encouraged to continue its efforts in data based decision making and continuous improvements, and in involving staff when addressing strategic and operational projects.

• Category 8: Planning Continuous Improvement - Lakeshore’s strategic planning process utilizes various sources for input, including forums, the Systems Portfolio, surveys, emerging issues, action plans, finances, and an environmental scan. Annual plans are developed to create a Master

Plan; the employee performance review process links individual performance to department and organizational goals. Should the need arise, the College deals with emerging issues. The College will benefit from ensuring that its planning processes are streamlined, aligned with one another, and all aimed at the same outcome of achieving the strategic plan which should be aimed at fulfilling the mission and realizing the vision of the College. Developing a process for setting and adjusting targets, and providing targets as part of results analysis, will strengthen the

College’s planning process. The inclusion of faculty and staff throughout all aspects of the planning process, including providing a feedback loop during implementation, will also benefit



5



March 12, 2013 the College. As presented, the planning process does not have sufficient monitoring in place to ensure that the process itself is effective. Inconsistent presentation of planning procedures and activities presented throughout the portfolio indicates there is room for growth in the area of effective planning.

• Category 9: Building Collaborative Relationships - An area for improvement that would benefit the College is in measuring the effectiveness of processes the College has developed. Table 9P7-1 demonstrates an extensive list of partnerships/relationships; however, they lack key goals and quality measures associated with the relationship-building processes.

Note: Strategic challenges and accreditation issues are discussed in detail in subsequent sections of the

Systems Appraisal Feedback Report .

S TRATEGIC C HALLENGES F OR L AKESHORE T ECHNICAL C OLLEGE

In conducting the Systems Appraisal, the Systems Appraisal Team attempted to identify the broader issues that would seem to present the greatest challenges and opportunities for the institution in the coming years. These areas are ones that the institution should address as it seeks to become the institution it wants to be. From these the institution may discover its immediate priorities as well as shaping strategies for long-term performance improvement. These items may also serve as the basis for future activities and projects that satisfy other AQIP requirements. The team also considered whether any of these challenges put the institution at risk of not meeting the Commission’s Criteria for Accreditation .

That portion of the team’s work is presented later in this report.

Knowing that Lakeshore Technical College will discuss these strategic challenges, give priority to those it concludes are most critical, and take action promptly, the Systems Appraisal Team identified the following:

6

• Lakeshore has a number of activities related to the assessment of student learning at the course and program level; however, there is little evidence that the institution is conducting student learning assessments, especially summative assessments, consistently across all courses and programs with data as the core element required for effective decision making. Areas of strength include the intake assessment process and WTCS lead general education reviews. However, significant opportunities exist for more holistic and explicit process development and implementation in both course-level and program-level assessment, as well as the overall strategy





March 12, 2013 for assessing Core Abilities. The institution will benefit from explicit process development which includes gathering, reviewing, and making improvements based on assessment data. This strategic issue was also noted in the 2009 Systems Appraisal Feedback Report and remains a strategic issue in this Systems Portfolio.

• In its reflective introduction, the team identified that “Lakeshore has a strategic opportunity to advance its processes from reactive and systematic to aligned and integrated.” Full analysis of the portfolio and consensus generation led the team to conclude that this reflective statement was an accurate perception. Generally, the information presented in the systems portfolio does not present a clear picture of processes that lead to measurable outcomes that are then reviewed against performance targets that are then utilized to identify improvements to the processes – and thus complete the continuous improvement loop. Lakeshore could benefit from a more defined process that includes the steps it takes when setting targets and provides for stakeholder feedback on the effectiveness of its planning processes. While Lakeshore has established processes, identified some data for results, and embarked upon improvements, it did not demonstrate in this portfolio that this is being done in a systematic way that shows a clear linkage between process, results, and improvements. Additionally, as noted in several of the category statements which follow, it was unclear to the team in several areas if performance benchmarks had been set for specific metrics – and if so, how were those set and were they met? If not met, what actions were taken to improve results? The College seems to have a vast array of places from which it might seek external benchmark data (WILM, WCTCS, etc.) – but the portfolio seemed to lack a focus on external data elements as well as performance targets in general. The issue of setting performance benchmarks was a strategic issue noted in the 2009 Systems Appraisal Feedback

Report and remains a strategic issue in this Systems Portfolio. The team believes the institution’s strategic initiative for 2012-13 which is to include a systems and processes review to assess institutional effectiveness of processes and offer opportunities for improvement will benefit the institution in this area.

• Ethics Training is an important part of every higher education institution’s ongoing professional development for faculty and staff. While Lakeshore states that it does conduct ethics training for staff (4P7), there is no evidence that this occurs on a regular, ongoing basis that meets regulatory and other compliance requirements. There is also no evidence that this training is updated on a regular schedule to ensure currency of topics covered.



7



March 12, 2013

• While the team believes that there was evidence that core component 5B was met at a minimal level, the team believes that the issues of governance and administrative structures promoting effective leadership and supporting collaborative processes is a strategic issue for the College.

Specifically, the team found the following: o There are loose descriptions of how decisions are made; however, there are not detailed processes. The graphic provided in Figure 5P5-1 does not follow the written narrative, as all conversation seems surrounded by the Leadership Team (at both top and bottom). The

Leadership Team reviews plans and proposals to ensure alignment with the mission, vision, values and strategic plan. Decision-making should reflect the more collaborative model demonstrated in the figure. o Lakeshore’s strategic planning activities, led primarily by its Leadership Team, do not appear to be aligned to budgeting priorities in support of the mission or linked to key strategic and operational goals such as assessment of student learning, evaluation of operations, and planning. It also is not clear if the planning process anticipates emerging factors such as technology, demographic shifts, and globalization.

AQIP C ATEGORY F EEDBACK

In the following section, the Systems Appraisal Team delineates its understanding of the uniqueness of the institution, and institutional strengths along with opportunities for improvement within the nine AQIP

Categories. As explained above, the symbols used in this section are SS for outstanding strength, S for strength, O for opportunity for improvement, and OO for outstanding opportunity for improvement. The choice of symbol for each item represents the consensus evaluation of the team members and deserves the institution’s thoughtful consideration. Comments marked SS or OO may need immediate attention, either to ensure the institution preserves and maximizes the value of its greatest strengths, or to devote immediate attention to its greatest opportunities for improvement.

AQIP Category 1: Helping Students Learn : This category identifies the shared purpose of all higher education organizations and is accordingly the pivot of any institutional analysis. It focuses on the teaching-learning process within a formal instructional context, yet it also addresses how the entire institution contributes to helping students learn and overall student development. It examines the institution's processes and systems related to learning objectives, mission-driven student learning and



8



March 12, 2013 development, intellectual climate, academic programs and courses, student preparation, key issues such as technology and diversity, program and course delivery, faculty and staff roles, teaching and learning effectiveness, course sequencing and scheduling, learning and co-curricular support, student assessment, measures, analysis of results, and efforts to continuously improve these areas. The Systems Appraisal

Team identified various strengths and opportunities for Lakeshore Technical College for Category 1.

Lakeshore is a part of the Wisconsin Technical College system and was first accredited in 1977. The

College became an AQIP College in 2000 and has recently joined the CQIN. Lakeshore has succinctly described their journey from initial accreditation to continuous quality improvement, demonstrating a high level of self-awareness and willingness to own areas for further improvement and growth.

Lakeshore has a strategic opportunity to advance its processes from reactive and systematic to aligned and integrated.

Lakeshore has self-identified the need to continue to mature in the area of Helping Students Learn. In order to accomplish this goal, the College has developed an Academic Master Plan, “Student Success at

Our Core”, focused on developing quality measures from admission to graduation. Action projects under the master plan are aligned across work units and information is shared through monthly Project

Showcases. In 2010-11, the College reviewed the common core abilities (common learning objectives), updated these, and developed direct ties to helping students understand the practical advantages of achieving these common core abilities. Rapid response to local workforce needs and for development of other new programs is facilitated through a New Ideas process that allows leadership to review initiatives for fit within strategic goals. The College has also focused on pre-College activities in order to help students transition more quickly into College level work.

1P1, S.

Using a cross-section of district employees, Lakeshore reviews its common learning objectives every five years. In the most recent review, global awareness and sustainability were added to the core abilities. General Education curriculum is based on courses offered through the

Wisconsin Technical College System (WTCS).

1P2, S. Program learning outcomes are established by the program dean, Director of Curriculum, faculty, and program advisory committees. Outcomes are revised based on data gathered in capstone courses, licensure exams, written/competency testing, internships, advisory committee input, program accreditation feedback, and other assessments. Lakeshore should continue the work it has done with the Technical Skill Attainment Action Project and see this project to completion in order to better assess program learning outcomes.



9



March 12, 2013

1P3-1P4a, S.

The Curriculum Design and Feedback Loop presented in the portfolio indicate a detailed conception of how to bring about new programs as well as to implement and assess the effectiveness of those programs. The College has a clear model for new program development that is grounded in available data resources. Many new program ideas originate from industry or

K-12 partners, and the leadership team assesses each for viability prior to initiating the development process. The examples related to successful and logical implementation show that the process is consistent and well organized to address community need. An electronic repository is used to collect ideas related to new offerings. Leadership reviews recommendations. Job market projections are determined using Economic Modeling Specialist Incorporated and the

Department of Workforce Development Labor Market Analysts. Partnerships are established with local chambers of commerce and economic development centers to further inform College programming.

1P3-1P4b, O.

While Lakeshore identifies a five phase process for development of program curricula and courses, an environmental scan illustrating the competitiveness of the offerings doesn’t appear to be a part of the process. The College would benefit by conducting a competitive analysis in support of the demand for the program. Lakeshore has established a

“New Ideas” process which allows stakeholders to submit ideas for new offerings via the

College’s Bridge system. It is unclear how this process to handle innovative or just-in-time requests is related to the College’s overall process for Designing New Programs. It would appear that at least one potential output for the new ideas process might be to have a program or curricular issues routed to the process for designing new programs outlined in 1P3b.

1P5, S.

Lakeshore has established processes that ensure that data such as course completion rates, retention rates, and graduation rates are utilized to make decisions related to changes in course sequencing or prerequisites. Lakeshore’s process to determine the preparation required of students begins upon admission with the use of Accuplacer and continues with course and program pre-requisites. Course pre-requisites are used to support student success in subsequent courses.

1P6, O.

Lakeshore uses typical sources to communicate program requirements, such as the

College catalog, new student orientation, and so forth. The materials and processes are driven by student services rather than by faculty course and program expectations. The connection between the faculty definition of course requirements and the student services intake and support system is



10



March 12, 2013 not clear, and the role of faculty in terms of student communication of program requirements seems minimal.

1P7, S.

There is a process described by which students are matched with a counselor, and by requiring students to meet before being accepted into a program, students must follow through with assessments and appointments. Additionally, Lakeshore provides opportunities to assist students with selection of their program of study. These opportunities include exploratory courses, World of Work, WisCareers, Student Strengths Inventory, and student workshops.

1P8, O.

While Lakeshore identifies activities that are in place to assist underprepared students, a process that follows the student from admission to graduation doesn’t appear to be in place.

Developing a process that supports students from admission to graduation could assist the

College with retention and completion rates.

1P9, S.

Faculty are provided with instruction on detecting and addressing student learning style needs in one of the state required certification courses. New faculty may also utilize a “Learning

Type Measure” in order to facilitate discussion with students about how their teaching style may differ from a student’s learning style. Additional instruction on developing learning activities which support student learning styles is included in later, required, WTCS certification courses.

The College may want to address how faculty use these measures to benefit student learning.

1P10, SS.

In order to address the needs of commuter students in its district, Lakeshore provides a shuttle service from its off sites to its main campus. The institution’s student services area also facilitates a carpool program.

1P12, S.

Lakeshore has established a process for determining the most appropriate delivery options for a course or program based primarily on ability to achieve learning outcomes utilizing currently available technology. This process also takes into account external requirements such as accreditation guidelines for delivery methods.

1P13, O.

Lakeshore participates in the WTCS-wide Quality Review Process (QRP), with each program scheduled for review on a five year cycle. Programs develop improvement plans are sent to the WTCS office; however, the information provided is not clear as to whether a process exists for monitoring and assessing the implementation of the improvement plan across the five year time frame for which it may exist.



11



March 12, 2013

1P14, O. Lakeshore has stated a number of tasks that might lead to a change or discontinuation of a course or program; however the information provided does not constitute an aligned process.

Lakeshore could benefit from development of an easily understood process for changing or discontinuing programs and courses. It is unclear how the Program Health and Viability Review, which appears to be completed annually, feeds into the Quality Review Program and the monitoring of program improvement plans – if such a linkage should exist.

1P15, S.

The College has made significant gains in how it meets student learning support needs, including the development of a Student Resource Center. The Student Government Association assists to identify institutional level student needs related to learning support, and students are represented on various advisory committees. Prep workshops are offered in areas tested by

Accuplacer, and most students taking the workshops improve their scores.

1P17-1P18, OO.

Lakeshore should continue the work it has begun to establish measurement rubrics for the core abilities and should continue to address the use of data gathered on student achievement of these core abilities to improve and inform curriculum and institutional priorities.

It should also continue with the implementation of its action program on summative assessment and continue work on the action project related to assessment of core abilities and program outcomes.

1R2, OO. While all of the data presented in Tables 1R2-1, 1R2-2, and 1R2-3 show that

Lakeshore is trending in a generally positive manner, the data provided do not illustrate performance on the institution’s core abilities. Lakeshore should establish appropriate measures for the core abilities and report on data appropriate to those core abilities.

1R3, OO.

In 2015, Lakeshore will begin reporting assessment outcomes through the Technical

Skill Attainment process in conjunction with other WTCS institutions, but Lakeshore does not provide any indication that the common learning objectives are being measured in any meaningful way. Data provided through this area is focused on only GED pass and transition rates. A clear system designed to measure student success related to the core abilities, and some means to invite faculty conversations around the measures could significantly benefit the overall program quality.

1R5, OO.

Lakeshore’s 2012 Noel-Levitz survey identified Instructional Effectiveness as the area with the highest overall gap between ranked importance and student satisfaction level.

Information is not presented to identify if this was a trend or a unique aspect of this



12



March 12, 2013 administration of the instrument. However, a gap in this area should cause the institution significant concern and call for dramatic action to improve in this area.

1R6, O.

The institution fares well in comparison to peer institutions, except for the 2nd and 3rd year retention (Statewide Indicator Summary). Evidence indicates an opportunity for improvement in this area.

1I1-1I2, OO.

While the institution has made several improvements, there is no clear evidence that these improvements were made as a result of review and analysis of data, implementation of an action plan based on that analysis, and evaluation of that implementation plan. For example, assessments of student learning are reviewed at different levels yet there is no clear identification of changes made or processes improved.

AQIP Category 2: Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives : This category addresses the processes that contribute to the achievement of the institution’s major objectives that complement student learning and fulfill other portions of its mission. Depending on the institution’s character, it examines the institution's processes and systems related to identification of other distinctive objectives, alignment of other distinctive objectives, faculty and staff roles, assessment and review of objectives, measures, analysis of results, and efforts to continuously improve these areas. The Systems Appraisal Team identified various strengths and opportunities for Lakeshore Technical College for Category 2.

Lakeshore has identified as its other distinctive objectives dislocated worker population, workforce training for local organizations, staff development, and an alumni group; however, these distinctive objectives appear to be isolated tasks and activities. The College has played a role in meeting the needs of a large number of displaced workers from the large manufacturing base in its service area. The

College supports and encourages community involvement by its employees.

2P1, O. While Lakeshore’s operational plans of the Workforce Solutions Department align with the College’s strategic plan, the College has not identified a systematic and aligned method for designing, operating, and assessing the non-instructional processes. Developing a systematic and aligned method for this purpose will allow the institution further opportunity to ensure that the resulting systems and departments operate in a manner which allows them to achieve the objectives established.



13



March 12, 2013

2P2, S.

The College ties non-instructional plans to the strategic planning process. The College seeks planning input through environmental scans, surveys, internal team meetings, program advisory committees, and stakeholder discussions.

2P3, O.

Goals are championed by members of the Leadership Team, who communicate expectations to internal staff constituencies through the planning process. However, given the outward facing nature of many of the institution’s key non-instructional objectives (alumni, community dental clinic, community involvement, high school programs, etc.) there are no external stakeholders or communication tools identified to ensure that the institution is communicating its own expectations to those who will likely receive services provided by these areas.

2P4, O.

Lakeshore does not appear to have a clear assessment plan and review process that defines targets, benchmarks, progress, and implements improvement strategies. The College focus appears to be on enrollment trends and workforce development, yet how these are measured in terms of success is not defined.

2R1, O.

Lakeshore has developed numerous result measurements; however, it is not clear if targets are set for all distinctive objective areas, such as alumni and high school programs. The

College may benefit from developing measures in these areas, as well as developing economic impact measures such as whether additional skill training improves employee wages.

2R2, S.

Lakeshore’s Workforce Solutions Key Performance Indicators illustrate economic strength for the last four years with stakeholders rating satisfaction with training higher than the

WTCS average in 2010-2011.

2R4, S.

The institution has received local recognition through awards and continues to attempt to strengthen relations within the community by responding to business training needs through program implementation and curriculum modification.

2I1-2I2, O.

While Lakeshore provides a list of recent improvements, it isn’t clear why the initiatives were selected, if they were data driven, and if they were successful.

AQIP Category 3: Understanding Students’ and Other Stakeholders’ Needs : This category examines how your institution works actively to understand student and other stakeholder needs. It examines your institution's processes and systems related to student and stakeholder identification, student and



14



March 12, 2013 stakeholder requirements, analysis of student and stakeholder needs, relationship building with students and stakeholders, complaint collection, analysis, and resolution, determining satisfaction of students and stakeholders, measures, analysis of results, and efforts to continuously improve these areas. The Systems

Appraisal Team identified various strengths and opportunities for Lakeshore Technical College for

Category 3.

Demonstrating its comprehensive self-awareness, Lakeshore acknowledges that Category 3:

Understanding Students’ and Other Stakeholders’ Needs is an area where it has made valuable improvements, but still has work to do in its quality journey.

3P1a, S. Lakeshore gathers feedback from students, staff, parents, high schools and others utilizing methods including surveys, focus groups and advisory boards to inform and identify student and stakeholder needs. Student success is measured using scorecards, performance monitors, and executive reports. Trend data is analyzed to evaluate changing needs and expectations.

3P1b, O.

The College is aware of the opportunity for integrating processes at a deeper level. It is not clear if the data is communicated across the institution rather than just reviewed in subsets by targeted groups. There is no description as to which results turn into action steps for strategic improvements.

3P2, S.

Lakeshore builds and maintains relationships with students through the four stages of preenrollment, enrollment, learning, and outcome. Students are assessed at each of the stages regarding learning styles, academic needs, and academic program.

3P3, O. While Lakeshore analyzes the needs of key stakeholder groups through various data points, the process followed in selecting a course of action for addressing needs is not clear.

3P4, O.

Although Lakeshore has built and maintains a tracking method for stakeholder relationships with its On-Contact software, evidence of how relationships are built and maintained with key stakeholders is anecdotal rather than process oriented.

3P5a, S.

Lakeshore completes an annual workforce planning process which analyzes local labor market needs and changes. This information, combined with information gathered about student support service needs, provides opportunities for Lakeshore to identify focus areas.

3P5b, O.

While Lakeshore defines the process it follows to identify new degree programs, the process to attract new groups of students and other stakeholders is not clear. Identification of a



15



March 12, 2013 process to attract new classification of students could assist Lakeshore with advancing its market area and outreach efforts.

3R1, O.

Lakeshore collects a variety of student and stakeholder satisfaction measures on a regular basis. It is unclear, however, what processes are used to regularly analyze the data, whether staff and faculty have direct access to the information, and what role they play in setting targets and actions in their specific areas to improve student and stakeholder satisfaction.

3R3, O.

Lakeshore provides student retention and graduation data in Table 3R3-3, including targets for each. However, it isn’t clear if the College analyzed why it didn’t reach its goals and if plans for improvement were implemented in following years. It would also be helpful to know the scales for the results and have response rates referenced to fully understand the data provided.

3R6, O.

It is unclear how the placement rate for graduates is determined, how the data was gathered or when. For example, how does Lakeshore know if students are employed in fields related to their program of study, if such employment was a result of program completion (i.e., the student was not already employed in that field during school)? As presented, the data implies cause and effect which may not be accurate.

3I1, O. While there is a list of improvements that have served particular stakeholder groups, there is no rationale presented by which these groups and projects were identified. Lakeshore does not define how systematic and comprehensive its processes and performance results are for understanding the needs of students and other stakeholders.

AQIP Category 4: Valuing People : This category explores the institution’s commitment to the development of its employees since the efforts of all faculty, staff, and administrators are required for institutional success. It examines the institution's processes and systems related to work and job environment; workforce needs; training initiatives; job competencies and characteristics; recruitment, hiring, and retention practices; work processes and activities; training and development; personnel evaluation; recognition, reward, compensation, and benefits; motivation factors; satisfaction, health and safety, and well-being; measures; analysis of results; and efforts to continuously improve these areas. The

Systems Appraisal Team identified various strengths and opportunities for Lakeshore Technical College for Category 4.



16



March 12, 2013

Lakeshore has a demonstrated history of success in the area of Valuing People through the development and implementation of its WCTS best-practice staff recognition program. Lakeshore provides a comprehensive two-year training program for new full and part-time faculty. The College has identified that it must next work on Succession Planning.

4P1, O. Lakeshore has a generic hiring process described that includes both Human Resources and the hiring supervisor, and is supported by job analysis software. There is no indication of how employee requirements are communicated, how positions are measured for consistency and equity of work, or how the process is evaluated for improvement. It is unclear what input, if any, faculty and staff have in the process of identifying requirements. Defining credentials by job classification, skills as related to the position, and values measurements, the College could improve the clarity of the process for employees.

4P2, O.

It is not clear if training programs for individual employees have estimated times for completion, and what may happen if identified skills and knowledge are not achieved. There is an opportunity for the College to outline a time line of training requirements corresponding to the

WTCS certification requirements.

4P3, S.

PowerHR Software is an online tool used to assist the College with management of its recruitment process. The recruitment process includes a focus on Affirmative Action. A range of retention strategies are used and include new employee orientation, flexible work schedules, mentoring programs, job shadowing, and exit interviews. The College’s acknowledgement and strategies put in place for employee retention is commendable.

4P4, SS.

The College provides a comprehensive 2-year training program for new full- and parttime (non-adjunct) faculty. Experienced faculty serve as mentors and are partnered with new faculty members. Managers and support staff use a similar mentoring system for the first year of employment.

4P5, O.

In the overview of this category, Lakeshore indicates that succession planning is a focus for the next year. The institution further indicates that it is focusing on developing an employee performance review (EPR) process. However, in the response to this question, the institution indicates that its succession plan and employee performance review are already in use.

Therefore, the response to this question is conflicting and difficult to interpret.



17



March 12, 2013

4P6, SS.

Lakeshore has trained 155 employees in the Lean Office principles as a means to contribute to high productivity and lean processes.

4P7, O.

Although Lakeshore states that employees are required to attend training on sessions related to ethical topics, there isn’t discussion of the frequency of the training or the process involved to ensure the topics remain relevant to changing employee needs.

4P10, SS. The College has a well-developed Employee Performance Review (EPR) process that sets short and long-term individual employee targets. The College researched other company evaluation models during the creation of the process and annually reviews and improves the process. Employees who have not met identified goals receive assistance through an improvement plan component to the process.

4P11, S.

As reflected in Table 4P11-2, Lakeshore aligned its staff recognition system with its strategic plan and AQIP goals.

4P12, S.

The College conducts a Campus Quality Survey once every 3 years to determine gaps in certain climate elements, and it has a budget option process where staff may identify opportunities to reduce expenses, generate revenues, recognize issues, and suggest process improvements.

4R1, S.

The College has identified in its response to this item the various measures, the purpose for analysis, the responsible party and frequency of analysis. The College may wish to adopt a similar process for stating responses to similar questions in other categories. The College may also benefit from cross-referencing its purpose statements with various planning documents and/or AQIP categories.

4R2a, S. The College employee survey indicates a very satisfied employee population, and the comments would indicate that the College is committed to listening to employees and making relevant changes to improve the workplace environment.

4R2b, O.

Although the Campus Quality Survey results indicate where improvement is possible to reduce gaps of current versus desired performance, the description does not indicate any plans for developing and implementing actions to address such issues, especially for the top management leadership and support category.

4R3, OO.

Lakeshore doesn’t provide data indicating the productivity and effectiveness of its employees in helping the College achieve its goals.



18



March 12, 2013

4I1, OO.

Lakeshore doesn’t describe how systematic and comprehensive its processes are for

Category 4.

AQIP Category 5: Leading and Communicating : This category addresses how the institution’s leadership and communication structures, networks, and processes guide planning, decision-making, seeking future opportunities, and building and sustaining a learning environment. It examines the institution's processes and systems related to leading activities, communicating activities, alignment of leadership system practices, institutional values and expectations, direction-setting, use of data, analysis of results, leadership development and sharing, succession planning, and efforts to continuously improve these areas. The Systems Appraisal Team identified various strengths and opportunities for Lakeshore

Technical College for Category 5.

In this category, “Leading and Communicating,” the College describes some of their processes as

“reacting and systematic.” Opportunity for improvement exists in this area.

5P1, O. The College has identified that it has developed and reviewed a strategic plan as well as established mission, vision, values, guiding principles, and ends policies. However, the College has not provided a clear and consistent process that it uses to review the mission, vision, and values on an ongoing basis. By developing and implementing such a process, the institution can ensure that appropriate stakeholders are reviewing these key elements on a consistent basis and updating them as needed based on both internal and external environmental factors.

5P3, O.

While inputs from students and key stakeholders are regularly gathered through a variety of means, a detailed process by which their needs are determined, prioritized, and addressed is not delineated.

5P5, S.

Lakeshore provides decision-making authority to each employee based on the level of work and responsibility. The leadership team is responsible for the major decisions related to planning and mission; however, faculty and staff have clear authority for their areas. The College encourages a team approach with shared decision making authority. Figure 4R2-2 shows high results from the Campus Quality Survey for employee empowerment and teamwork.

5P6, S.

Lakeshore uses its College Monitor, Project Management System, Quality Review

Process and Program Health, and Employee Performance Reviews to assist with its decisionmaking process.



19



March 12, 2013

5P7, S. The College clearly has a number of communication channels (Figure 5P7-1) in place and uses those channels to seek input in the decision-making process. The College faculty and staff have access to information through several sources; however, The Bridge appears to be the key location for sharing and dissemination of information.

5P8-5P9, O.

It is unclear how the institution’s orientation to the mission, vision, and values conducted by the President for all new employees (as noted in 5P8) relates to the required two year training program for full- and part-time faculty as well as training for staff. Furthermore, there does not seem to be alignment between the activities identified in 5P9 and those identified in category 4 on Valuing People – even though these areas are very closely linked.

5P10a, S. The Early Notification Program encourages staff to inform the College months in advance of intentions to retire. When possible there is an overlap period with the outgoing employee.

5P10b, O.

Lakeshore states that the College maintains and preserves its mission, vision, values, and commitment to high performance through its mentoring program and succession planning process. The Category 4 introduction states that succession planning is an area of improvement.

5R2, O. Lakeshore has seen strong improvements in leadership and support as well as campus communication as indicated by the significant changes in its Campus Quality Survey results

(Figure 5R2-1). While there has been improvement in many areas between 2007 and 2010 in the

Leadership and Support Campus Quality Survey, there are still significant areas (e.g. analyzing relevant data, administrators paying attention to what is said, employees rewarded for outstanding job performance) that would benefit from focused attention. In a future Systems Portfolio, the

College should include the process it followed to improve in these areas and the corresponding results.

5I1, OO.

Lakeshore’s response does not answer the second question for this item.

AQIP Category 6: Supporting Institutional Operations : This category addresses the variety of institutional support processes that help to provide an environment in which learning can thrive. It examines the institution's processes and systems related to student support, administrative support, identification of needs, contribution to student learning and accomplishing other distinctive objectives, day-to-day operations, use of data, measures, analysis of results, and efforts to continuously improve



20



March 12, 2013 these areas. The Systems Appraisal Team identified various strengths and opportunities for Lakeshore

Technical College for Category 6.

Lakeshore would benefit by describing how its processes for “supporting institutional operations” relate to each other and developing a plan that supports regular review of those processes. The strategic project to assess customer satisfaction with institutional processes provides Lakeshore an opportunity to identify how information is prioritized and responses are deployed throughout the institution. Once the process for prioritization and deployment of information is developed, it can be applied to other strategic initiatives for better alignment and integration of processes .

6P1-2, OO.

Lakeshore uses several methods to gather input; however, there is no indication as to how the College uses this information to inform process improvement. It is unclear how the

College connects the data collected to the strategic plan goals. Feedback is shared with the appropriate manager and staff, but it is unknown how this information is used to identify support needs of students and other stakeholders, set targets, and develop related actions for improvement.

6P3, SS.

Development of both a Behavior Intervention Team and Crisis Leadership Team points to the College’s desire, and ongoing support for, creating a safe and secure campus environment.

Crisis communication and response processes have been developed, and tabletop exercises are completed annually.

6P5, S. The College’s Bridge is intended to provide documentation to College personnel and houses all news, procedures, and information in one location. Access to information through this intranet site provides opportunity to inform practice and stimulate improvement discussions.

6R2, O.

Lakeshore states that the College will continue to monitor the results of its surveys to determine areas for improvement. However, the College doesn’t describe plans for improvement that have been implemented based on survey results.

6R3, O.

The College reviews various measures related to performance for administrative support service processes. If performance targets are not set for support areas, the College may benefit by doing so. For example, Table 6R3-1 shows administrative process survey results in 2007 and

2010, but it does not indicate what the College had set for targets or whether those targets were met. It would benefit the College to show the effort and readjustment based on results, even if results were not positive.



21



March 12, 2013

6I1, S.

Based upon the results of the Campus Quality survey, the College formed a crossfunctional team to review, recommend, and implement a communication model and process to improve College-wide communication. The team evaluated the existing communication channels and developed a model that captured top-down, bottom-up and interdepartmental communication to ensure College-wide communication.

AQIP Category 7: Measuring Effectiveness : This category e xamines how the institution collects, analyzes, and uses information to manage itself and to drive performance improvement. It examines the institution's processes and systems related to collection, storage, management, and use of information and data both at the institutional and departmental/unit levels. It considers institutional measures of effectiveness; information and data alignment with institutional needs and directions; comparative information and data; analysis of information and data; effectiveness of information system and processes; measures; analysis of results; and efforts to continuously improve these areas. The Systems


Category 7.

The College states that it operates primarily with systematic approaches to measuring effectiveness and that processes are becoming better defined and repeatable, as is the monitoring system, with specific targets and goals. A strategic initiative for 2012-13 is a systems and processes review which will assess institutional effectiveness of processes and offer opportunities for improvement.

7P1, S.

Lakeshore’s process for selection, management, and distribution of data and performance information is based on College, state, and federal objectives. Processes have been developed for initiatives (7P1-1) and non-initiatives (7P1-2). Data are selected, managed, and distributed based on strategic plan initiatives.

7P2a, S. The College planning process integrates the strategic plan, master plan, and annual plans with a measurement system. Key performance indicators are assigned to goals. Information is communicated at monthly Project Showcase, in-service, and mid-year updates.

7P2b, O.

Lakeshore has developed a wide variety of planning processes, but there continues to be a lack of evidence that these planning processes funnel into a logical, repeatable and ongoing planning process which aids the institution in executing its quality improvement goals.



22



March 12, 2013

7P3, O.

The information the College has provided appears to present a monitoring system that is primarily reactive in nature rather than continuously identifying needs. Developing processes which focus more on needs analysis as a part of the initial project chartering process may aid the institution in moving away from reactive measures.

7P4, S.

Board monitoring reports, monthly monitors (posted on division bulletin boards), monthly meetings, reviews of key performance indicators, QRP scorecards, and year-end reports are ways that the College shares and analyzes data.

7P5, S.

While the College has acknowledged the need for improvement, it is beginning to establish longitudinal peer comparisons based on recognized need for this data and input from the last portfolio.

7P6, S.

Divisions and departments develop annual operational plans in alignment with those of the strategic plan. Data and analyses are shared through meetings, monthly and year-end reports, the decision support system, and The Bridge.

7P7, O.

While Lakeshore states that it has a process in place to back up and store data, a process to assess a security breach isn’t described. The College would benefit from developing a process to “test” its own system periodically.

7R2, S.

The College has established a process for ensuring that the output of Process

Improvement Teams (PIT) continues to remain a part of the institutional culture and that processes are implemented, reviewed consistently and measured. The 21 Process Improvement

Teams have resulted in a variety of improvements including cost avoidance of $4225, reduction in customer wait times by six days, and revision/clarification of roles and processes resulting in a number of simplified processes.

7R3, O.

The portfolio does not show actual comparison results; however, these may be found in other locations, such as 6R2-1 and 5R3-1. If these are the only two comparisons, the College may benefit from additional comparison data. The advantage of the Wisconsin Indianhead,

Lakeshore, and Mid-State Technical Colleges (WILM) area consortium membership for comparison purposes is yet to be established.

7I1, S.

In order to identify steps that were not necessary in current processes, Lakeshore developed a flowchart for documentation when evaluating processes.



23



March 12, 2013

AQIP Category 8: Planning Continuous Improvement : This category examines the institution’s planning processes and how strategies and action plans are helping to achieve the institution’s mission and vision. It examines coordination and alignment of strategies and action plans; measures and performance projections; resource needs; faculty, staff, and administrator capabilities; analysis of performance projections and results; and efforts to continuously improve these areas. The Systems


Category 8.

Lakeshore has dedicated processes and a history of planning continuous improvement. There are three levels of developed plans, and they align with the Strategic Plan. There are Key Performance Indicators identified and monitored for each strategy The College would benefit from ongoing evaluation of the processes that have been in place as well as working for more inclusion throughout the institution.

8P1a, S. Lakeshore’s strategic plan, Envision 2015, strongly and succinctly encompasses the mission and vision of the College in four strategic areas: Envision Future Workforce; Envision

Student Success; Envision Partnerships; and Envision Excellence. The strategic plan is developed from feedback received through forums, the Systems Portfolio review, and surveys. Each year, the College conducts an environmental scan to inform needs, and assesses its current performance. Should emerging issues arise, the College has a process in place to revise the strategic plan. Annual plans are aligned to the strategic plans and are developed to create an overall Master Plan used to guide the College. The plan is updated every three years.

8P1b, O.

While Lakeshore did review its mission, vision and values, it is unclear if the College has established a regular review process for these areas.

8P1c, O. The institution’s strategic goals lack enough detail to ensure they are measurable.

Further, it is unclear from the information provided related to department, annual, and master plans how these plans are developed in such a way to properly align with one another, the strategic plan, and the College’s mission, vision and values. The institution would benefit its planning process overall, as well as its ability to assess the effectiveness of its planning system, by ensuring that strategic goals are stated in measurable terms, and that there is specific alignment between all planning processes as well as plan execution procedures.

8P2, O. Although the College has identified a wide array of appropriate inputs into its selection process for short- and long-term strategies, it has not provided a process by which those strategies are selected. The role of staff input is not indicated and faculty input is only indicated in the



24



March 12, 2013

Educational Planning area. Decisions made through the master plan on an annual basis are completed by the Leadership Team. The inclusion of feedback on decisions past the information gathering phase is not clear. It is also unclear if assessment of student learning outcomes is a factor considered in selecting strategies or how the Employee Performance Review (employee evaluation) alone provides the information necessary for the development of Department

Master/Annual plans.

8P4, S. Employee performance review is used to link individual productivity to operational plans and then to the strategic plan. Operational plans are developed for departments and divisions and employees are evaluated based on the goals defined in their respective areas.

8P5, O.

While Lakeshore states that stretch goals are set based on past results, the process the PIT model uses to determine these goals, inform change, and document process improvement is not clear. The College’s PIT model could assist with documenting the process it follows to set performance goals, analyze results, and adjust future goals accordingly.

8P6a, S.

The College is positioned to respond quickly to community needs. The College allocates resources to support strategies and action plans through the reallocation of dollars, new development dollars, or strategic investments. Mid-year changes and opportunities are evaluated by the Leadership Team and, if approved, the budget is modified. Lakeshore’s Budget Core

Team and Instructional Leadership Team meet quarterly to review and monitor the budget.

8P6b, O.

While the process for developing action plans, linked to strategic directions and based on resources available, is logical and sound, it is unclear when (timeline) these steps occur. This is especially confusing with the statements that reallocation may occur in response to community need, but without sacrificing pre-established strategic plans. The response seems to indicate that the process of establishing annual plans is not aligned with fiscal and resource planning in a manner that allows a department to set its plan during a budgeting cycle and then execute the approved plan based on budget allocation to strategic activities. The plan appears more reactive to allocations made rather than proactive in ensuring that resource needs are being met in a way that ensures alignment with strategies.

8P7, S.

Lakeshore has several processes in place to address the four major areas of risk, either through the College’s planning cycle or through its emerging opportunities process.



25



March 12, 2013

8R2a, O.

Lakeshore has demonstrated that it has established and met many of its targets for its strategic goals on an annual basis and that it monitors those goals on an ongoing basis through its

College Monitor and Instruction Monitor tools. Tables 8R2-1 and 8R2-2 indicate that the College tracks progress on initiatives at regular intervals and is able to make adjustments based on those results. However, it is not clear if the College met the targets that it set for each goal. For example, Table 8R2-1 indicates strong results, especially in student retention areas, but it is unclear if targets were set for these annual plan areas and whether or not those targets were met.

8R2b, O.

The Systems Portfolio does not detail how assessment of student learning outcomes is a developed, proficient, sustainable process. With only 23 of 29 programs completing Phase 2 of the summative assessment process, the College will gain by completing this action project and incorporating assessment directly into the planning process.

8R3, O.

Table 8R3-1 and 8R3-2 indicate targets for key indicators in the College Monitor with results monitored by the institute; the table has a “comparison” column – but it is not clear who is in the comparison group. Table 8R3-2 indicates several areas for the institution to “watch”, and significant among these is employer satisfaction. Tables 8R3-1 and 8R3-2 provides targets for

2014-2015, but it isn’t clear how the targets were set. Although all of these tables provide data, information is often incomplete, making it difficult to assess appropriately.

8R4, OO. The College doesn’t provide data to illustrate how its results compare with other institutions. The use of comparative data drawn from the collaborative consortium is not clear, especially in terms of how the data is used to inform process improvement and change within the organization. Lakeshore is part of the WILM consortium, which may provide the College an opportunity for comparison data.

8R5, OO.

The final step in the planning process as highlighted in Figure 8P1-1 does not provide evidence that Lakeshore is evaluating its planning process. The information in the final step of the planning process appears to measure only the results of the process in place, not the process itself, which is the intent of the question that is asked. The institution may wish to revisit its current planning process to ensure that the distinction between measuring results of the execution of plans versus measuring the effectiveness of the planning process as a whole is fully understood and being undertaken at the College.

8I1, O. Although the College has made numerous changes that appear to indicate improvements in the actual planning process, Lakeshore does not illustrate that the information is used in a



26



March 12, 2013 comprehensive and systematic manner to inform process improvements.

8I2, O. The College’s top down, bottom-up continuum of idea generation supports a team environment and provides opportunities for employees to participate in parts of the planning and quality process; however, it is not clear how the culture helps select processes to improve, set improvement targets, “connect” planning processes to each other, and use data results to establish new targets based on previous performance.

AQIP Category 9: Building Collaborative Relationships : This category examines your institution’s relationships – current and potential – to analyze how they contribute to the institution’s accomplishing its mission. It examines your institution's processes and systems related to identification of key internal and external collaborative relationships; alignment of key collaborative relationships; relationship creation, prioritization, building; needs identification; internal relationships; measures; analysis of results; and efforts to continuously improve these areas. The Systems Appraisal Team identified various strengths and opportunities for Lakeshore Technical College for Category 9.

Since 2000, Lakeshore has dedicated resources to developing collaborative relationships, and there have been initiatives in the last two strategic plans to improve relationships. The institution points to the

WILM consortium as an example of a mature process, though the institution self-identifies measuring the effectiveness of College processes as an area for improvement.

9P1, S.

Lakeshore has developed relationships based on institutional goals. The College has built strong relationships with K-12 schools and K-12 leaders, workforce development organizations, and area employers. The College promotes staff involvement in community organizations and associations.

9P2, S.

Lakeshore works with advisory committees and employers to ensure educational opportunities meet workforce needs. Examples of efforts include Workforce Solutions training and articulation agreements. The College has incorporated a software package, On Contact, to help monitor relationships by tracking activity with stakeholders.

9P4, O.

The College uses a number of outside vendors to provide services to students. How these relationships are measured and how changes are made to improve the relationships is not clear.

Although vendors are invited to participate in College development activities, there is no



27



March 12, 2013 indication that they do or work to be a part of the College culture in support of the College mission.

9P5, S.

The foundation for Lakeshore’s key partnerships is based on alignment with the strategic plan, resource commitments, and the impact the relationship can have on key measures.

Partnerships that meet these requirements are developed and evaluated as they relate to key performance indicators.

9P6, O. The College has a software tool for managing communication and to track contacts made with partners. It is not clear how the software is used to inform and change processes related to developing and sustaining relationships over time.

9P7a, S.

The College seems to have extended a lot of effort to provide communication internally, through The Bridge site, cross-functional training sessions, collaborative opportunities, and attendance at student meetings. Through both formal and informal methods, the College is able to maintain collaborative relationships

9P7b, O.

Lakeshore lists a series of activities but doesn’t define a formal process to build internal relationships. The College also doesn’t describe a formal process of communication between and among departments.

9R2, O.

Lakeshore’s performance results provide excellent data regarding the results of their relationship building; however, it is unclear if Lakeshore set targets for these areas and whether or not any set targets were reached. The College might benefit from setting targets in these areas.

9R3, O.

The data that Lakeshore provides does not present information on the quality of its key collaborative relationships. In order to identify areas of improvement and advance its relationships with internal and external stakeholders, Lakeshore should consider developing a formal process to gather input from its stakeholders.

9I2, O.

The College involves staff and students in several ways as described throughout the portfolio; however, how the data and information gathered are used to inform the development of quality relationships with the students and community is unclear. The College could benefit from benchmarking data points on a regular basis and to map changes based on implemented improvements. The College doesn’t appear to use feedback from its external stakeholders to help the College select processes to improve and to set targets for improvements.



28



March 12, 2013

A CCREDITATION I SSUES L AKESHORE T ECHNICAL C OLLEGE

The following section identifies any areas in the judgment of the Systems Appraisal Team where the institution either has not provided sufficient evidence that it currently meets the Commission’s Criteria for Accreditation (and the core components therein) or that it may face difficulty in meeting the Criteria and core components in the future. Identification of any such deficiencies as part of the Systems

Appraisal process affords the institution the opportunity to remedy the problem prior to Reaffirmation of

Accreditation. Thus this feedback is formative..

5P2 & 5P6. HLC Core Component 5.C. The institution engages in systematic and integrated planning.

Lakeshore did not provide sufficient evidence to support Core Component 5C. Mission and values do not appear to be reviewed regularly. A wide variety of annual plans are alluded to but never really delved into in any detail. No systematic process is presented.

5P2.

HLC Core Component 2.C. The governing board of the institution is sufficiently autonomous to make decisions in the best interest of the institution and to assure its integrity.

While Lakeshore did state that its Board meets monthly to provide governance, set outcomes, and establish policy, it did not provide enough evidence to support Core Component 2C.

1P1 & 1P2.

HLC Core Component 3.B. The institution demonstrates that the exercise of intellectual inquiry and the acquisition, application, and integration of broad learning and skills are integral to its educational programs.

The College has defined nine common learning objectives based on employer input and workforce needs. They are reviewed every five years by a cross-functional faculty team. The common learning objectives are appropriate to the mission, education offerings, and degree programs offered by

Lakeshore.

The General Education courses offered at Lakeshore share curriculum with other institutions in the

WTCS consortium to provide a framework for course development and revision, as well as promote transferability between the institutions. Through designing curriculum which allows students to attain the core abilities and program learning objectives, Lakeshore has established opportunities for students to engage in collecting, analyzing, and communicating information; mastering modes of inquiry or creative work; and in developing skills adaptable to changing environments.



29



March 12, 2013

In 2010-2011, through its established Core Ability Review Process, Lakeshore updated its core abilities in the areas of human and cultural diversity. The Core Ability Review Process consisted of a faculty committee surveying Lakeshore faculty, attending division meetings, and using a focus group of employers for input. As a result of this process, a revised item, “Respect and Appreciate Diversity” is now a part of the nine Student Core Abilities. Global awareness is also integrated throughout the curriculum

DACUM, industry standards, data, accreditation reports, stakeholder input, and attainment of technical skills are used to assess program learning objectives.

1P2 & 1P18.

HLC Core Component 4.B. The institution demonstrates a commitment to educational achievement and improvement through ongoing assessment of student learning.

Lakeshore is doing a number of things related to the assessment of student learning at the course and program level; however, there is little evidence that the institution is doing these things consistently across all courses and programs with data as the core element required for effective decision making about potential changes. Areas of strength include the intake assessment process and WTCS lead general education reviews. However, significant opportunities exist for more holistic and explicit process development and implementation in both course and program assessment, as well as the overall strategy for assessing Core Abilities.

Currently, it appears that not all of the Lakeshore programs have assessments. The College has an

AQIP project “Technical Skill Attainment Action Project” that is addressing common core program outcomes and assessments with 23 out of 29 completing Phase I. The College states that Phase I verified that program outcomes and core abilities were integrated and assessed. However, the

College states that Phase II requires the programs to have some form of direct assessment method such as a clinical, internship, field experience, authentic work practice, or portfolio. It is not clear how many programs are currently in Phase II or have completed Phase II.

Capstone courses, licensure exams, written/competency testing, internships, and other assessments are used to ensure that students are achieving learning outcomes.

Program advisory committees assist with setting the vision for program learning outcomes. The

College has a process in place to complete formal self-study reviews of programs every five years.

Additionally, programs with outside accreditations complete required reviews that are assessed by external accreditation groups.



30



March 12, 2013

1P4 & 1P10.

HLC Core Component 1.C. The institution understands the relationship between its mission and the diversity of society.

Lakeshore has established a Diversity and Multicultural Student Services area. A Multicultural

Community Advisory Council meets quarterly to assist in building bridges and breaking down barriers. A Minority Recruitment and Retention Team has also been established.

Disability Services, TRiO Support Services, services for single parents, displaced homemakers, men/women entering nontraditional occupations, and academically disadvantaged youth are services provided by Lakeshore.

1P4 & 1P12.

HLC Core Component 3.A. The institution’s degree programs are appropriate to higher education.

Lakeshore has established a procedure for evaluating when courses should be offered utilizing flexible learning options. The College uses a six-step Flexible Learning Options Process in which advisory committees play a key role in making determinations regarding delivery method.

Courses and programs offered are typical of a two-year technical College.

Credit for prior learning is offered to students.

All degree, diploma, and apprenticeship offerings have student-learning outcomes that are consistent across all modes of delivery.

Lakeshore has an established program review process that assesses curriculum currency, student learning, and employment.

1P4 & 1P13.

HLC Core Component 4.A. The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs.

Lakeshore evaluates credit received through Prior Learning and Dual Credit through established policies. The College establishes its processes for prerequisite knowledge during the initial development of a program and through evaluation of ongoing course requirements.

Thirteen of the College’s academic programs have external accreditation.

Annual surveys are conducted to assess attrition, retention, and graduation rates. This data is used to create an annual program scorecard which measures enrollments, course completion and retention rates, graduation rates, satisfaction rates and placement rates.



31



March 12, 2013

The institution completes a regular process of program review through its Quality Review Process, as mandated by the WTCS. Academic program review is conducted every five years with an annual scorecard occurring each year.

The Director of Curriculum ensures curriculum is current, performance-based, meets curriculum standards, incorporates technology, incudes effective learning activities, and assesses student learning.

1P6.

HLC Core Component 2.B. The institution presents itself clearly and completely to its students and to the public with regard to its programs, requirements, faculty and staff, costs to students, control, and accreditation relationships.

Program advising sessions are required for students prior to acceptance into a program and registering for classes. Requiring a meeting with a counselor prior to program admission ensures that the student has opportunity to both receive information and ask any questions s/he has.

Lakeshore Technical College’s website is also used to communicate expectations. The website is easily navigable, and the program summary sheets effectively convey expectation for the duration of the chosen program. The College provides information regarding programs, student requirements, faculty and staff, costs to students and accreditation in their catalog and online.

Information sheets, advising sessions, new student orientation sessions and course syllabi also provide evidence of the College’s information to the public.

Diversity and Multicultural services, Educational Support Services, Dislocated Worker, Disability

Services, and Title III case managers all work together to convey information to key populations .

1P7 & 1P15.

HLC Core Component 3.D. The institution provides support for student learning and effective teaching.

The Student Government Association assists to identify institutional level student needs related to learning support, and students are represented on various advisory committees.

The College assigns a key contact admission specialist to students in the very beginning. Students are provided various means of case management services, Student Strengths Inventory, early alert systems and student success options.

The institution identified three attrition factors: coping skills, low engagement, and program appropriateness. Since that time the institution has attempted to address these factors by involving student services, counseling, and faculty to make improvements and support student learning.



32



March 12, 2013

Lakeshore has established numerous methods to support student learning including placement testing, pre-academic coursework, tutoring and minority services, accommodations for disabilities, Library services, and student success workshops.

The College has developed the New Faculty Development Plan and an educational program planning process so that faculty have necessary training and input in College processes that affect the classroom.

The institution appears supportive of faculty needs through tuition reimbursement for continuing education and institutional support groups.

1P11.

HLC Core Component 2.D The institution is committed to freedom of expression and the pursuit of truth in teaching and learning.

Lakeshore provides for a 2-year mentoring program for new faculty where they are paired with experienced faculty to facilitate effective transition into the institution.

The College communicates the value of academic freedom through the Office of Instruction to faculty and students. The Policy #IN-113, Academic Freedom, states that “Academic freedom is important in all areas of education…” The instruction of higher learning has the responsibility to expose students to controversial ideas and issues within their future academic occupational fields.

Aggregated results of teacher evaluations (both student evaluations and observations) are presented to faculty to facilitate ongoing quality improvement in teaching.

Lakeshore course syllabi contain information on ethical use of information resources, academic honesty and integrity.

Training on operational policies dealing with ethical practices is provided to faculty.

1P11.

HLC Core Component 2.E. The institution ensures that faculty, students, and staff acquire, discover, and apply knowledge responsibly.

The College has a faculty credentialing system. Faculty Credentialing includes attained education, work experience and coursework in specific areas, depending on the program. The College’s credentialing system provides professional development that lays the groundwork for excellence in teaching and learning.

Ongoing opportunities are provided for faculty development, including a two-year training program for new full- and part-time faculty.



33



March 12, 2013

A course template for syllabi is available for all courses.

The template provides static content for the ethical use of information, resources for students and outlines the policy information. Enforcement on academic honesty and integrity is available or the syllabus template refers students to the student handbook which contains respective information.

A model has been developed integrating improving student learning into the QRP process, and it builds on QRP’s data-driven model to inform initiatives that promote effective student learning. Staff develop QRP improvement plans to help analyze their work environment and make improvements in their own classrooms.

1P16.

HLC Core Component 3.E. The institution fulfills the claims it makes for an enriched educational environment.

There are many co-curricular opportunities for involvement, including clubs, service learning, study away, and other program activities. Student clubs align with the profession associated with the program. Program faculty assure experiences match developmental goals. Non-program clubs designed to support core abilities such as diversity and teamwork are also supported by the College.

The College has many choices for student clubs which align with chosen programs. Often, faculty are the advisors of these clubs. Many clubs also incorporate service learning opportunities. Service

Learning, instituted through the Wisconsin Campus Compact, has enriched the experience of students, particularly in the Horticulture Technician Program. Rebuilding Together provides students the opportunity to reach beyond their specific program and offer service to the community.

3P1.

HLC Core Component 4.C. The institution demonstrates a commitment to educational improvement through ongoing attention to retention, persistence, and completion rates in its degree and certificate programs.

Lakeshore tracks measures on course completion, FTE, enrollment trends, retention, and graduation and employment rates.

Instructional programs are evaluated through the Program Health Process. The Program Health

Process is used to monitor retention, graduation, and placement by program.

Lakeshore defined a strategic project to address student retention.

The Leadership Team and Instructional Leadership Team monitor leading indicators such as admission data, course and program drops, enrollments, and FTEs through their Monthly Monitor.

3P3 & 3P5. HLC Core Component 1.D. The institution’s mission demonstrates commitment to the public good.



34



March 12, 2013

Figure 8P1-1 illustrates that planning takes into account developing needs of stakeholders and indicates that the College is prepared to respond to what it calls “Emerging Issues.” The Leadership

Team evaluates whether ideas align with the mission, vision, and strategic plan.

There is response time both annually and on a 3-year cycle to provide for more immediate needs that stakeholders might have.

Annual plans are developed to align the strategic plan and community needs.

The institution responds to workforce training needs through a newly developed Workforce

Development Model.

The College conducts an environmental scan and assesses its current performance annually .

4P2 & 4P10 HLC Core Component 3.C. The institution has the faculty and staff needed for effective, high-quality programs and student services.

WTCS establishes minimal credential criteria with the College requiring additional criteria as needed.

Authentication of work and educational requirements of new hires is conducted by the College’s

Human Resources office. A process is in place to assist hires not meeting initial credentialing requirements.

Employees providing support services needs are evaluated to ensure they hold the appropriate qualifications and training.

Lakeshore has a strong process for continued professional growth of its faculty and staff, requiring both short and long term goals.

The College currently has an 11 to 1 student to faculty ratio

Employees are evaluated annually. The ERP process is used to align job description duties, performance monitors, and development plans of individuals with the strategic plan. This process is designed to ensure that individual work goals align with the strategic plan.

4P7 HLC Core Component 2.A The institution operates with integrity in its financial, academic, personnel, and auxiliary functions; it establishes and follows fair and ethical policies and processes for its governing board, administration, faculty, and staff.

The College has defined an LTC Employee Code of Ethics and Conflict of Interest Policy, as well as other policies regarding ethical practices. The College requires staff training on policies including sexual harassment, diversity, FERPA, etc.



35



March 12, 2013

Lakeshore communicates Right to Know information to employees and students annually.

4P7 HLC Core Component 2.E. The institution ensures that faculty, students, and staff acquire, discover, and apply knowledge responsibly.

Lakeshore has policies on academic honesty and integrity that are communicated to students in the

College student handbook. Information is distributed to students and staff on a variety of topics related to integrity, compliance with regulations, and core values.

The College uses Turnitin software to prevent plagiarism and communicates this to students in course syllabi.

An Acceptable Use Policy for Computers message displays when anyone logs into a campus computer.

5P1 & 5P2.

HLC Core Component 1.A The institution’s mission is broadly understood within the institution and guides its operations.

In spring 2004 the college defined its mission statement using input from various stakeholder groups.

The mission and vision were reviewed in 2010 as part of a strategic planning update.

The Leadership Team aligns Lakeshore’s Board and operational priorities with the mission, vision, and values.

The institution states that the Leadership Team utilizes its established Guiding Principles for making program and budget decisions. The institution also states that its graduate survey and employer survey inform the College’s academic programs, student support services, and enrollment profile as consistent with its mission.

5P3 & 5P8.

HLC Core Component 1.B. The mission is articulated publicly.

The mission is articulated through the usual means of catalog and publications, orientations, wall postings, etc.

Recruitment materials for both students and employees include the mission statement, thus informing of the institution’s identity at the earliest stages. The College mission, vision, and values are also communicated through the employee orientations.

Actions that support and reinforce the mission, vision, and values of the institution are recognized using LTC Cares Checks.



36



March 12, 2013

5P5 & 5P9.

HLC Core Component 5.B. The institution’s governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership and support collaborative processes that enable the institution to fulfill its mission.

Policies are reviewed on a regular schedule.

There are loose descriptions of how decisions are made; however, there are not detailed processes.

The graphic shown (5P5-1) does not seem to match what is stated in the text. All work appears to rest with the Leadership Team as it reviews plans and proposals to ensure alignment with the mission, vision, values and strategic plan. Decision-making should reflect a more collaborative model.

The College uses teams as the primary source for project and goal deployment and implementation.

Project Teams and Process Improvement Teams provide recommendations to the Leadership Team.

At all levels of the College, there is expectation for professional development to ensure that whatever one’s function in the College, one is current and equipped to carry out duties and responsibilities.

7P2 & 7P4.

HLC Core Component 5.D. The institution works systematically to improve its performance.

Lakeshore has developed strategic, master and annual plans with key performance indicators and established a review process to move the institute forward. Key performance indicators are assigned to strategic goals and projects, including AQIP Action Projects..

Lakeshore uses The Bridge, Quality Review Process scorecard, and monitoring reports to develop and document evidence of performance in its operations. Lakeshore also holds a monthly Project

Showcase as well as in-service and mid-year updates to communicate information related to planning and performance.

The College utilizes its monthly monitors, monthly board reports as well as mid-year and year-end reports to discuss, document, and review future actions needed. The board reviews monitoring reports on a monthly basis. Processes that are identified by the monitoring process for possible improvement are improved through the Process Improvement Model.

The process improvement model (Figure 7P2-2) is used to eliminate unnecessary steps in a process, identify steps for consistent implementation and communication, and identify areas of improvement.

8P6.

HLC Core Component 5.A. The institution’s resource base supports its current educational programs and its plans for maintaining and strengthening their quality in the future.

The Portfolio merely indicates that resources are allocated through the annual budget process and that the Leadership Team ensures that there are sufficient resources to accomplish approved initiatives.



37



March 12, 2013

Department and division action plans are linked to strategic directions, and developed based on availability of human and financial resources, facilities, employer needs, accessibility, affordability, program health, and the costs to develop, implement and maintain over time.

Lakeshore allocates resources to support approved strategies and align action plans through reallocations, new development dollars, or strategic investments.

When new opportunities emerge that benefit local workforce and economy, the Leadership Team accommodates the priority through reallocation without sacrificing pre-established strategic plans.

Mid-year changes and opportunities are evaluated by the Leadership Team and if approved the budget is modified.

Budgets are established to implement action plans.

Q UALITY OF S YSTEMS P ORTFOLIO F OR L AKESHORE T ECHNICAL C OLLEGE

Because it stands as a reflection of the institution, the Systems Portfolio should be complete and coherent, and it should provide an open and honest self-analysis on the strengths and challenges facing the organization. In this section, the Systems Appraisal Team is encouraged to provide constructive feedback to the institution on the overall quality of the portfolio, along with suggestions for improvement of future portfolio submissions. The team should not provide in this section feedback to AQIP about how the

Systems Portfolio and Systems Appraisal processes themselves may be improved. Such feedback should be provided separately and AQIP will be happy to receive the input.

38

• The team found the parenthetical indications of where the College was addressing a core component of the criteria to be very helpful in conducting our review.

• In some cases, the evidence provided that the institution was meeting the core component was little more than a restatement of the core component in affirmative terms. The institution should strive in future portfolios to provide further evidence of how it is meeting the core components through its processes, results, and improvements.

• The portfolio overall lacked a common voice and a common vocabulary. For instance, the

Academic Master Plan, “Student Success at Our Core” is mentioned in the introduction to

Category One but is not mentioned again in that category. The College’s strategic plan, Envision

2015, is not referred to consistently throughout the portfolio, making it very difficult to understand all of the different planning processes and how they fit together. The College may





March 12, 2013 want to consider developing their acronym list into a full glossary that provides common definitions and references for terminology so that it is easier to keep a single voice across all sections.

• There were several instances where contradictory information was provided in the portfolio – particularly between the category overviews and the statements made within the categories. For example, in the overview to Category 4 (Valuing People) the College states, “The goal over the next year is to focus on a Succession Planning program.” However, the response to 4P5 reads as if this process is already viewed as a mature process at the College.

• Several times, data presented in graphical format utilized truncated scales and/or did not include required contextual information such as n-values or maximums. Examples include: o Figure 3R3-1 o Figure 3R4-1 o Figure 5R2-1

• As noted in several of the category statements, it was unclear to the team in several areas if performance benchmarks had been set for specific metrics – and if so, how were those set and were they met? If not met, what actions were taken to improve? The College seems to have a vast array of places from which it might seek external benchmark data (WILM, WCTCS, etc.) – but the portfolio seemed to lack a focus on external data elements.

• Since this was the third portfolio submitted by Lakeshore, the team would expect that processes presented would be more mature and more consistent in their presentation. Processes such as the overall planning process, process improvement process, etc. should be readily explainable and clearly understood by any reader when an institution is embarking upon its second portfolio update/third portfolio submission. Where verbal explanations may not suffice, graphical representations may also aid the institution in making a process clear to the reader.

• The College did not routinely make clear and apparent connections between the processes, results and improvements – both within a category and across the entire systems portfolio.

U SING THE F EEDBACK R EPORT

AQIP reminds institutions that the Systems Appraisal process is intended to initiate action for institutional improvement. Though decisions about specific actions rest with each institution, AQIP expects every institution to use its feedback to stimulate cycles of continual improvement and to inform future AQIP processes.



39



March 12, 2013

Some key questions that may arise in careful examination of this report may include: How do the team’s findings challenge our assumptions about ourselves? Given our mission and goals, which issues should we focus on?

How will we employ results to innovate, grow, and encourage a positive culture of improvement? How will we incorporate lessons learned from this review in our planning and operational processes? How will we revise the Systems Portfolio to reflect what we have learned?

How an organization interprets, communicates, and uses its feedback for improvement ought to support AQIP’s core values, encouraging involvement, learning, collaboration, and integrity.

AQIP’s goal is to help an institution to clarify the strategic issues most vital to its success, and then to support the institution as it addresses these priorities in ways that will make a difference in institutional performance.

40



Document 13241190

YSTEMS

PPRAISAL

EEDBACK

EPORT in response to the Systems Portfolio of

AKESHORE

ECHNICAL

OLLEGE

230 South LaSalle Street, Suite 7500

Chicago, Illinois 60604 www.AQIP.org

AQIP@hlcommission.org

800-621-7440

Related documents

Products

Support

Document 13241190

YSTEMS

PPRAISAL

EEDBACK

EPORT in response to the Systems Portfolio of

AKESHORE

ECHNICAL

OLLEGE

230 South LaSalle Street, Suite 7500

Chicago, Illinois 60604 www.AQIP.org

AQIP@hlcommission.org

800-621-7440

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib