AQIP NEWSLETTER TEAMWORK AT MCC
Issue #11
December 2006
Interview with
Greg Thomas
re: Our Systems Portfolio
Where are
we in the AQIP process?
MCC is halfway through the seven-year accreditation process. The Systems
Portfolio is submitted in the fourth year. We recently discovered that
we misunderstood their calendar cycle; the document is due at the
beginning of the fourth year, not at the end of the fourth year, so we
have had to re-negotiate our deadline. We will be submitting the Systems
Portfolio in May, 2007, which means we are hard at work compiling
information for inclusion.
What is the
AQIP Systems Portfolio?
It is a document that we must write as part of our accreditation
process. In order to produce this document we must answer a
comprehensive and detailed set of questions about our institution. These
questions center on the
nine AQIP categories. Unlike the self-study document included in
the traditional accreditation process, the Systems Portfolio will not
only be submitted to the Higher Learning Commission, but it will also
become a public document on the MCC website. It is approximately 100
pages in length, and describes our institution in great detail.
For a
complete overview of the Systems Portfolio, please click here.
What is the
process of writing the Systems Portfolio?
The Strategic Planning Team (SPT) has stepped forward to tackle the
initial phase of information-gathering and will be completing that phase
by the end of January, 2007. The Writing Team will then take over and
shape the document. One important requirement is that the document has
“one voice”, so I will be heavily involved with and responsible for the
final product.
I have to compliment SPT, as they have taken it up with a passion. SPT
members have been divided into six teams, are meeting regularly, and are
completing the detailed worksheets provided to us by AQIP. Each of the
nine categories mentioned earlier include a set of questions; Context,
Process, Results, and Improvement questions to be answered, and evidence
to back-up the answers must be provided.
Please click here
if you are interested in reading more.
I attended a portfolio writing workshop in Chicago October 23rd and
24th, which helped clarify the process for me and gave me an
understanding of how the Higher Learning Commission is going to view and
evaluate our document. The workshop gave us some great tools, especially
the worksheets for information-gathering. More importantly, the
conference reaffirmed the nature of our relationship to the Higher
Learning Commission. It is a supportive one, not an adversarial one. In
the AQIP process, we do not face the “inquisition” every ten years. We
are continually working on institutional improvement.
It is kind
of like being students in a class again. We know that we are going to be
evaluated, and initially there is pressure to make ourselves look good,
but that effort can get in the way of any real learning or improving. If
we throw up a bunch of smoke and mirrors in this document, we are only
going to hurt ourselves. This is an opportunity to be reviewed by our
peers at other institutions and other experts in higher education. Why
wouldn’t we want the best feedback we can get from them? So, the more
honest and accurate we are in representing ourselves, the better it will
be for everyone involved.
I have full confidence that the document will be completed on time and
will provide the avenue for our college-wide commitment to better serve
students. I look forward to the feedback that we receive.
Dancin' to the AQIP Rock!
Quote (and Image!) of the Month
Opportunities to Participate
SPT, AQIP, Action Teams
The flowchart chart below should help visualize how SPT, AQIP, and the Action Plans fit together.
At a recent Steering Team meeting, members
came up with a flowchart chart to put their ideas and discussion points
into some sort of graphic. From the diagram, you can see that the
Writing Team and the Research Team (more on that later) feed into the AQIP Steering Committee, which in turn channels information to SPT
(two-way communication). Action Plans 2 and 3 have been given fairly
complete names, while Action Plan 1 still needs to be fully-developed
with a descriptive name. Actual team members will do that. Leaders for
the three projects have been appointed, namely the three deans, with an
opportunity for volunteer co-leaders.
Now, back to that Research Team. Members of this team will spend time
researching other colleges for information, which might be helpful to us
as we continue the AQIP process. Examples might be researching Action
Projects, Systems Portfolios, and other documents developed by various
colleges. So, if you are a “research type” and would be interested in
joining this team, please let Dr. Haney or any other member of the
Steering Committee know.
Speaking of volunteers, it’s that time again. Take a look at the three
Action Plans and select one, based upon your interest and/or your
connection to the topic. What’s that saying?—“It’s not mandatory, but
highly recommended.” Hint, hint - it might come up during your AWP
evaluation.
Oh yes, and there are openings on the Writing Team, as well.
The formal opportunity to join an action project team will come at the next professional development day, February 19th.