Accountability,
Accreditation and
Institutional
Effectiveness
Professional Development Training
The Accreditation Process
• Once Every Ten Years:
– SACS (Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools) reaffirms
colleges and universities for its region:
• 11 states and those in Latin America
• States = Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia
– Accreditation is important for students
wanting course credits to transfer and
to receive federal financial aid.
SACS Timeline:
• In 2002, the Commission on Colleges got
rid of the old “must statements” and
replaced them with:
– Core Requirements
– Comprehensive Standards
– QEP - Quality Enhancement Plan
• Our last visit was in Fall 2002 and our next
is in the 2013-2014 year.
• SACS report submitted- February 2013
• On-site visit September 24-26
The New Process
• The accreditation process now includes:
– 12 Core Requirements (actually 16 with the
sub-requirements)
– 14 Comprehensive Standards (59 subcategories)
– A Quality Enhancement Plan
– 7 Federal Requirements
• The new process calls for reviews from
three groups:
1. An offsite committee
2. An onsite committee
3. A QEP subgroup of the onsite committee
including several invited experts (our
choosing)
SACS Requirements and
Proposed Changes
• Core Requirement 2.5
“The institution engages in ongoing , integrated ,
institution-wide , research-based planning and
evaluation processes that
(1) incorporate a systematic review of institutional
mission, goals and outcomes
(2) result in continuing improvement in
institutional quality, and
(3) demonstrate that the institution is effectively
accomplishing its mission (Institutional
Effectiveness).”
SACS, continued
• Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1 states
“The institution
 identifies expected outcomes for its educational
programs and its administrative and educational
support services;
 assesses whether it achieves these outcomes;
 provides evidence of improvement based on
analysis of those results.”
• Comprehensive Standard 3.5.1 states
“The institution
 identifies college-level competencies within the
general education core and
 provides evidence that graduates have attained
those competencies.”
So an institution needs to
put in place ….
• Ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide
research-based planning and evaluation
processes that include:
– a systematic review of institutional mission,
goals and outcomes
– Which results in continuing improvement in
institutional quality
– And demonstrates that the institution is
effectively accomplishing its mission
So an institution needs
to put in place ….
• A list of expected outcomes,
• Assessment of those outcomes, and
• Evidence of improvement, based on analysis of
those outcome results in each of the following
areas:
– educational programs (student learning outcomes at
the program and individual level)
– administrative support services
– educational support services
• Identified college-level general education
competencies (based on best practices in
assessment) and provide evidence that graduates
have attained them
But Why?
• Are we doing this only because of SACS?
• Shouldn’t we periodically take a serious
look at our students?
• Are they learning? Who is learning best?
• Are they achieving the outcomes we
expected?
• Should we make changes in programs and
services? Do we need more in-depth
services? Do we need a new curriculum or
a change in methodology?
• Our focus should be on learning and
improving, not our assessment processes.
A New Eight-step Process
for SACS Accreditation
1. COC staff conducts an orientation for the
college’s Leadership Team.
2. The institution prepares and submits a
compliance certification along with
appropriate supporting documentation
3. The off-site committee reviews the
compliance certification. The off-site
committee prepares a report for each
institution. This committee of peers goes to
Atlanta the first week of June each year
(several hundred) and multiple separate
committees review five colleges each.
A new eight step process
4. The commission staff orally
communicates to the institution a
summary of the report prepared by the
off-site committee. The college may
choose to submit a focused report. The
onsite committee receives copies of both
reports.
5. The institution submits its QEP to the
commission and the on-site committee
(4-6 weeks before the onsite visit).
A new eight step process
6. The onsite committee visits the college to
review areas of non-compliance, any other
areas of concern and to determine the
acceptability of the QEP. The onsite
committee submits a report to COC.
7. The college prepares a response to the
onsite committee report and submits it to
the commission.
8. The commission reviews the findings
included in the report of the onsite
committee and the college’s response and
takes action on the institution’s
reaffirmation.
The Process
• While some at the college will
be working on the focused
reports, another group will be
working on the QEP.
• So let’s discuss the QEP
What is it?
• The QEP is a carefully designed and
focused course of action that
addresses one or more critical
issues related to enhancing student
learning.
• The selected topic should
 complement what the institution
is already doing and
be incorporated into its ongoing
planning and evaluation process.
The QEP
• It is “forward-looking” or “future
oriented” and thus transforms the
process into an ongoing activity
rather than an episodic event (not a
boutique program).
• The overall goal should be to help the
institution create a plan to increase
the effectiveness of some aspect of
its educational program relating to
student learning.
The QEP
• At the time it is submitted to the
COC, it is a plan that launches a
process that can move the institution
into a future characterized by
creative, engaging and meaningful
learning experiences for students.
• Student learning may include:
– changes in students’ knowledge, skills,
behaviors and/or values
– that may be attributable to their college
experience.
Sample Topics
• Enhancing the academic climate for student
learning
• Strengthening the general studies curriculum
• Developing creative approaches to experiential
learning
• Enhancing critical thinking skills
• Introducing innovative teaching and learning
strategies
• Increasing student engagement in learning
• Exploring imaginative ways to use technology in the
classroom
• ALL MUST BE CLEARLY LINKED TO IMPROVING
STUDENT LEARNING!
QEP Update...Where are we
now?
• selection committee formed spring 2011
• QEP themes identified:
Developmental Education
Online Courses
First Year Experience
Career Readiness
Information Literacy
Highest Enrollment courses
• Survey to employees, students, community
to gather data on topics
• Themes narrowed, call for white papers
summer 2011
Topic chosen for CPCC:
First Year Students-creating
ways to help first year students succeed
QEP Update...Where
are we now?
Upcoming timeline:
• QEP will be submitted- July
2013
• QEP pilot- September 2013
• Pilot of QEP must be done before
expanding QEP to entire college
Institutional
Effectiveness at CPCC
Our individual Role in Accreditation
The Process at CPCC
 The Institutional Effectiveness Plan
is a four-pronged approach:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Annual goal setting
Annual program review
The assessment of general education
The College’s annual assessment
plan
Annual Goal Setting
 The College establishes strategic goals
through the strategic planning process
(Board and Cabinet approve every fall)
 Individual units set performance objectives
to support the College’s goals in the Spring
 Mid-year and end-of-year progress reports
are made (December and May)
 The Institutional Effectiveness Report is
written in the Summer and distributed at the
Fall Forum
Annual Program Review
 All College units are reviewed
– All instructional programs (a portion each year over a five
year cycle)
– All Administrative Services units, Enrollment and Student
Services units and units reporting to the President’s Office
(over a three year cycle)
 Completed program reviews go to the Vice
President of each unit; Results are reported
to their councils, the Cabinet and then
college-wide
– Needs and future issues are identified
– Implications for planning and budgeting are addressed
 One year follow-ups are completed (closing
the loop)
General Education Goals
 A General Education Committee revised
the goals in 2000-2001 and created an
assessment process for the College
 In order to measure general education
goals, a portfolio is created each year
that includes:
– Definitions of competencies by general
education area
– Learning outcome targets
– Sample works
– A full report by each individual general
education area
College’s Assessment
Program
 Each year the following
surveys/reports are done and
reported to the college community:
– Graduate Follow-up Survey
– Faculty-staff Survey
– Current Student Survey (curriculum,
literacy and CCE)
– Enhanced Accountability Report
– Program Review Surveys
– Student Opinion Surveys
Accountability
Measures for 2011-2012
Report for
Central Piedmont Community College
Mandate for Accountability
• Senate Bill1366, Section 10.5
– The General Assembly finds that the current
annual program review standards are not
adequate to ensure that programs are meeting
the needs of students, employers, and the
general public; therefore, the State Board of
Community Colleges shall review the current
standard to ensure a higher degree of program
accountability and shall establish appropriate
levels of performance for each measure based
on sound methodological practices.
Performance MeasuresOld vs. New
Old
1 progress of Basic Skills students
change
Next Year
replaced
w/ 1 & 2
2 separate measures, 1 & 2:
1 progress of Basic Skills students
2 pass rate for licensure and
certification exams
same,
but #7
2 GED diploma rate (new)
3 good standing of 4 year transfer
students
same,
but #8
3 success of developmental students
in college-level English
4 pass rate in developmental courses
eliminated
4 success of developmental students
in college-level math
5 success of developmental students
in college courses
replaced
w/ 3 & 4
6 student satisfaction with programs
eliminated
7 persistence of curriculum students
same,
but #6
8 satisfaction of business/industry
eliminated
5 first year progression (new)
6 persistence of curriculum students
7 pass rate for licensure and
certification exams
8 good standing of 4 year transfer
students
2011-2012
New Process for NC
Accountability Measures
• 8 measures
• All NC Community College’s
data is combined and the
system office has created a
GOAL and a BASELINE
benchmark.
• This process compares how we
measure to other colleges.
A. Basic Skills Student Progress
Benchmark:
Percentage of students who progress as
defined by an educational functioning
level.
System Goal
System Baseline
51.2%
20.6%
College Mean
System Totals
41.0%
41.5%
49.8%- CPCC above college mean;
below goal
(2,356 students out of 4,730 progressed)
B. GED Diploma Passing
Rate
Benchmark:
Percentage of students taking at least one
GED test during a program year who receive
a GED diploma during the program year.
System Goal
System Baseline
82.0%
49.3%
College Mean
System Totals
71.1%
69.6%
75.1%CPCC above college mean;
below goal (289 students out of 385
passed GED test)
C. Developmental Student
Success Rate in College-Level
English Courses
Benchmark:
Percentage of previous developmental English and/or reading
students who successfully complete a credit English course
with a grade of “P”, “C” or better upon the first attempt.
System Goal
System Baseline
74.9%
45.2%
College Mean
System Totals
63.7%
64.5%

CPCC met the GOAL- 77.8%
(1,457 students out of 1,872 had a C or better
or “P” upon first attempt)
D. Developmental Student
Success Rate in College-Level
Math Courses
Benchmark:
Percentage of previous developmental math
students who successfully complete a credit
math course with a “C” or better upon the first
attempt.
System Goal
System Baseline
75.4%
47.5%
College Mean
System Totals
64.8%
64.1%
 71.5%CPCC above college mean; below goal
(993 students out of 1,388 had a “C “ or better upon
first attempt.)
E. First Year Progression
Benchmark:
Percentage of first-time fall credential-seeking
students attempting at least twelve hours within
their first academic year who successfully
complete (“P”, “C” or better) at least twelve of
those hours
System Goal
74.6%
System Baseline
53.2%
College Mean
67.7%
System Totals
67.5%
70.3%CPCC above college mean;
below goal
F. Curriculum Completion
Benchmark: Percentage of first-time fall
credential-seeking students who graduate,
transfer, or are still enrolled with 36 hours
after six years
System Goal
System Baseline
45.6%
28.6%
College Mean
System Totals
41.6%
41.1%
36.7% Mean
CPCC Above Baseline, Below
G. Licensure & Certification
Passing Rate
Description:
Aggregate institutional passing rate
of first time test-takers on licensure and certification
exams. Exams included in this measure are state
mandated exams which candidates must pass before
becoming active practitioners.

CPCC met the GOAL (92.3%)
System Goal
System Baseline
91.7%
71.0%
College Mean
System Totals
85.0%
86.9%
G. Passing Rates for
State Licensure Exams
2011-2012
-
33
18
64
-
230
395
92%
H. Performance of 2010-2011
College Transfer Students
Benchmark:
Among community college
associate degree completers and those who have
completed 30 or more credit hours who transfer to a
four-year university or college, the percentage who
earn a GPA of 2.00 or better after two consecutive
semesters within the academic year at the transfer
institution.
– 86.9% of associate degree CPCC
transfer students were in good academic
standing. (2.0 GPA or better)
– 86% of those with 30+ hours (579) were
in good academic standing.
H. Performance of 2010-2011
College Transfer Students
System Goal
System Baseline
College Mean
System Totals
93.6%
71.2%
86.7%
87.6%
86.9%CPCC above college mean;
below goal
Overall Success by CPCC
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Accountability Measures for 2011-12
Basic Skills Student Progress-above mean; below goal
GED Diploma Passing Rate-above mean; below goal
Developmental Student Success Rate in
College-Level English Courses- met Goal
Developmental Student Success Rate in
College-Level Math Courses-above mean; below goal
First Year Progression-above mean; below goal
Curriculum Completion-above baseline; below mean
Licensure & Certification Passing Rate-met Goal
Performance of College Transfer Students- above
mean; below goal
Questions?
• Our website:
• http://www.cpcc.edu/ie