QEP (Quality Enhancement Plan)
Preparing for UK’s SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation: Introducing the Quality
Enhancement Plan (QEP)
I. Background
The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) is the regional body for
accreditation of higher education institutions in the southern states. The University of
Kentucky has been a SACS accredited institution since 1915 (most recently reaffirmed in
2002). We are now beginning the process of seeking reaffirmation of accreditation (to be
decided in 2013).
Since our last reaffirmation, SACS approved an updated set of standards and guidelines.
One important change involved reducing the 463 “must” statements for compliance to 55
Comprehensive Standards. The rationale for doing so was to allow institutions to tailor their
reports more directly to their individual missions and strategic plans. With this dramatic
reduction in the number of “must” statements came an addition to the core requirements
called a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP). An acceptable QEP is a carefully designed and
focused course of action that addresses well-defined issues directly related to improving
student learning.
II. Teams Involved in the Development of the QEP
The sequential process of preparing the QEP involves four teams. These teams are the:
1) Pre-Planning Team (PPT): develops a plan and timeline for the entire project
2) Topic Selection Team (TST): identifies a QEP topic based on broad input
3) Plan Development Team (PDT): composes a 100-page written document for SACS
approval
4) Implementation Team (QEP-IT): executes the plan
What follows is a description of the plan and timeline developed by the UK Pre-Planning
Team.
1
III. Activities of the Pre-Planning Team: what’s been done thus far
Summer 2008
Several UK faculty, staff, and administrators attended a QEP
Workshop hosted by SACS in Orlando, FL (Heidi Anderson, Connie
Ray and Kaveh Tagavi).
Summer 2009
Several additional faculty, staff, and administrators attended a QEP
Workshop hosted by SACS in Houston, TX (Marsha Watson, Mike
Mullen, Deanna Sellnow, and Rena Murphy).
Oct 2009
Brief QEP informational presentations were made by Deanna
Sellnow and Kaveh Tagavi to UCAPP, Deans’ Council, and
Senate Executive Committee.
Nov 2009
The Pre-Planning Team (PPT) was established: Heidi Anderson
(Faculty Affairs), Ruth Adams (Art), Ruth Staten (Nursing), Gail Hoyt
(Finance), Jane Jensen (Education), Deanna Sellnow (Communication;
Co-Chair), Diane Snow (Medical Center/SCoBIRC; Co-Chair), Jeff
Rogers (Modern Languages), Ex-Officio: Marsha Watson (UK
Assessment) and Connie Ray (VP for Institutional Effectiveness), Mike
Mullen (Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education, John Herbst
(Student Services Director), Kaveh Tagavi (Engineering), and Ben
Duncan (Student Government).
Nov 09 - Jan10
The PPT met regularly to develop an overall plan for the QEP process
(referred to as: the Topic Selection Plan and Timeline).
Nov 20 2009
The PPT met with representatives from three
universities who had already completed a QEP: Northern Kentucky
University, Eastern Kentucky University, and the University of
Louisville. Each representative made a presentation followed by a
Q&A session.
December 11
The PPT provided a draft of UK’s QEP process proposal to Dr.
Armacost, a QEP SACS consultant, for review and critique.
December 17-18
At a 2-day retreat, the PPT met with Dr. Armacost
for advice on revising the proposed Topic Selection Plan and
Timeline.
January 11
The PPT met to finalize the revised Topic Selection Plan and
Timeline.
2
IV. What’s next: The Topic Selection Team and Topic Selection Plan
A. Topic Selection Team
From discussions thus far, the PPT makes the following recommendations regarding the
composition of the Topic Selection Team (TST), which should be appointed by the Provost by
the end of Jan 2010:
Topic Selection Team (TST) Composition
Team Member Continuity. To ensure accurate historical perspective and continuity, at least
six (6; accounting for possible attrition) individuals from the Pre-Planning Team should move
on to the Topic Selection Team. However, if possible, the recommendation is for ALL of the
Pre-Planning Team members to continue on to the Topic Selection Team, each representing
their college or office, then individuals be appointed to fill in the remaining suggested posts
(see below). Similarly, six (6) individuals from the Topic Selection Team will then move on to
the QEP Planning Team that prepares the QEP proposal for SACS. At least 1 team member
and 1 Ex-Officio member should continue through the entire process, possibly more. Finally,
six (6) individuals from the QEP Topic Development Team should be included on the QEP
Topic Implementation Team.
Representatives should be identified by the Provost with input from the deans and by the
Chair and Chair-Elect of Senate Council. All colleges should have one representative.
People who continue on from Pre-Planning Team will represent their colleges. Arts and
Sciences consists of three distinct divisions and services a large undergraduate student
population, therefore, A&S should be represented by one individual from Natural Sciences,
one from Social Sciences, and one from the Humanities. In addition, the team should include
3-5 students who broadly represent student involvement. Include at least 2 individuals from
Co-curricular Units (e.g. first year programs, academic enhancement, career services and
others). The resource team should include representation from IT, Budget, and Office of
Assessment.
Ex-Officio members: Assoc Provost for UG Education, SACS Liaison, PR, Assoc Provost for
Academic Administration and Dean of the Graduate School.
It is recommended that the committee make use of external focus groups to get input from
the community at-large, students, athletics and any other groups not fully represented.
In all, the QEP Topic Selection Team should comprise at least 30 members. We suggest the
group identify a steering committee of 4-6 members to ensure efficiency. Based on input
from other campuses that have completed the QEP topic selection process, we suggest the
team be co-chaired by a representative from the main campus and professional campus
(med school, dental school, etc). Finally, attention should be paid to ensure diverse
representation. “Continuous presence” member(s) may or may not count as reps from a
college.
3
B. Topic Selection Plan and Timeline
January 2010
The Topic Selection Plan and Timeline will be presented to the Provost and Senate
Council to ensure consistency with Senate rules and curricular procedures. Important: The
Provost should appoint someone to be a “continuous presence” throughout process.
The Topic Selection Team will recommend a QEP topic selection and planning budget to the
Leadership Team and work to ensure that realistic planning goals are established in light of
available resources.
A list of all projected dates for Senate Updates will be provided to Sheila Brothers (Senate
Secretary) for Senate scheduling.
STEPS 1 and 2: COLLECT and STORM (February – April 2010)
The goals of steps one and two (simultaneous efforts) are: to collect and review as many
sources as possible of university assessment that are relevant to undergraduate education,
and to gather perspectives from faculty, staff, administration, current students, prospective
students/families, alumni, community partners/stakeholders, and representatives from other
institutions regarding QEP topic big ideas. Essentially, this step introduces the campus
community to QEP.
February 8
Members of the PPT will provide a SENATE UPDATE at the UNIVERSITY SENATE
MEETING
February 2010
The process will begin with a campus-wide email message from the President. This
message will alert the campus community to the existence and importance of the QEP; and
will ask for participation and input. Following the announcement, TST members will begin PR
efforts to get the campus energized about developing potential “big ideas” (issues) for the
QEP. This will include presenting at regularly scheduled meetings of academic, professional,
and student groups across campus.
Members of the Topic Selection Team (TST) will begin collecting and reviewing (1)
assessment data from university-wide sources, colleges across campus, student affairs, and
student groups, as well as (2) the university mission and strategic plan, and (3) the SACS
website detailing what other campuses have used for their QEPs. Doing so will help them
discover possible “big ideas” (issues) for the QEP. They will synthesize what they discover in
regular weekly meetings.
Four or five members of the TST will be chosen to attend the SACS Institute in July 2010.
4
March 2010
Members of the Topic Selection Team will begin storming for “big ideas” (issues) from
faculty, staff, administration, current students, prospective students/families, alumni,
community partners/stakeholders, and representatives from other institutions. The storming
will happen via e-mail campaigns, surveys, focus groups, interviews, a Facebook page, etc.
to ensure opportunity for involvement from a broad constituency.
April 2010
Members of the Topic Selection Team will update the campus community of the assessment
data results and ongoing storming process via units’ regularly scheduled meetings.
STEP 3: CATEGORIZE (SUMMER 2010)
From the ideas collected via the multitude of campus conversations with team members,
categorize emergent themes for consideration. (NOTE: Direct the ideas that do not meet
the QEP charge to the appropriate campus units for future attention and possible
development.)
June 2010
The Topic Selection Team will synthesize assessment data and storming “big ideas” (issues)
to identify emergent themes that could be developed into a QEP. Themes that do not meet
the charge of the “call” will be funneled to appropriate units across campus for consideration.
July 2010
Four or five members of the Topic Selection Team will attend the SACS Institute.
STEP 4: DEVELOP (SUMMER 2010)
Goal is to develop a set of criteria by which to evaluate the proposed topics
July 2010
The Topic Selection Team will develop rubrics for preparing and criteria for evaluating PreProposals and White Papers, keeping in mind the following SACS mandated criteria:
 Must be supportable by research.
 Must be important for our own students.
 Must be important for the university
 Must clearly address student learning.
 Must be implementable with reasonable resources.
 Must have broad agreement that this is important and valuable (faculty, students, staff)
5
STEP 5: REPORT (SUMMER/FALL 2010)
Goal is to report emergent themes back to campus to keep them involved in the process.
August 2010
The Topic Selection Team will report the emergent themes revealed over the summer
(based on assessment and storming data collected in Spring 2010).
STEP 6: INVITE (SUMMER/FALL 2010)
Goal is to invite pre-proposals from anyone who wants to submit one.
September 2010
The Topic Selection Team will invite pre-proposals regarding any of the emergent themes.
Guidelines, rubrics, and evaluation criteria will be provided with the invitation. Due Oct. 1,
2010
September 13
SENATE UPDATE
STEP SEVEN: REQUEST (October 2010)
October 1, 2010
Pre-Proposals due to the Topic Selection Team.
Oct 2010
Review pre-proposals and select 8-10 for possible white papers.
Request 8-10 white papers: Due Dec. 1, 2010
Individuals who submit white papers will receive an honorarium of $1000.00.
Nov 8 (?)
SENATE UPDATE
STEP 8: FINALIZE (Jan - Mar 2011)
Goal is to evaluate the white papers and identify 3 topic ideas that best meet the criteria.
Jan 2011
Topic selection committee selects 3 white papers (topics) and announces them to the UK
community.
6
Jan 2011
SENATE UPDATE and feedback
Feb 2011
Topic(s) are submitted to UK Leadership Team.
Feb-Mar
Announce final topic to UK community
QEP Planning Development Team (PDT)
Mar 2011
QEP Planning Development Team Identified
Members of PDT will be chosen to go to SACS Institute in July 2011
Apr 2011-12
Ongoing preparation of final QEP document (Budget finalized and approved)
Jun 13, 2011
Reaffirmation Orientation Meeting in Atlanta (Pres and Leadership Team; max = 4 people,
one from QEP group)
July 2011
Selected Members of PDT go to SACS Institute
Aug 2012
Final QEP Approval Process (Senate, Leadership Team, BOT)
Fall 2012
Run pilots and marketing
Engage students in contests to develop a name, a logo, etc.
Jan 2013
Mar 2013 (?)
Submit QEP document to SACS Review Team (75 p. text + 25 p.
appendices)
On-site SACS Review (Note: they do not “approve” the QEP, they
“accept “ it)
Apr 2013
SACS Report to UK submitted; we respond
Dec 2017
Prepare Impact Report
7