Understanding AQIP (Academic Quality Improvement Project). Some slides and/or information have been borrowed with permission from their originators: 1. JoAnn Simser Office of the Chancellor, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities 2. Higher Learning Commission (HLC). PEAQ & AQIP.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Some slides and/or information have been borrowed with permission from their originators:
1. JoAnn Simser Office of the Chancellor,
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities
2. Higher Learning Commission (HLC)
The HLC offers two programs
for achieving continued accreditation.
Program to Evaluate & Advance Quality
Culture for change
Strategic planning initiatives
Alignment with Accrediting Bodies
Credibility outside education
Involvement with quality initiatives
Leadership in Education
Reasons for PEAQ
(less than 2 cycles)
Lack of buy-in
MissionAQIP or PEAQ?An Institutional Choice
Preparing for the Future
Student Learning & Effective Teaching
Acquisition, Discovery, & Application of Knowledge
10 Principles of High
Performance Oraganizations +
9 AQIP Categories:
Attend a Strategy Forum within one year of acceptance.
A sample Systems Portfolio is on-line at www.AQIP.org, plus links to 20 actual Systems Portfolios
How We Do Things
The Results We Get
The Systems Portfolio is a 75-100 page public document describing fundamental institutional processes and systems.
It covers the nine AQIP Categories and provides evidence that the institution continues to meet the HLC’s five Criteria for Accreditation
Created once over the first four years with AQIP, it is continually updated to reflect changes in the institution's systems and processes.
Separate independent and consensus review stages ensure feedback that represents the team’s shared view of institutional strengths and improvement opportunities
The blind review process focuses institutional attention on the feedback itself — rather than the reviewers
The appraisal panel includes representation from outside on the feedback itself — rather than the reviewers
higher education, enhancing the review’s credibility.
The valuable professional feedback report includes: on the feedback itself — rather than the reviewers
Affirm accuracy of online on the feedback itself — rather than the reviewersSystems Portfolio and verify information in the portfolio
Review with leaders Action Projects and strategies to capitalize on strengths and opportunities for improvement
Assure organization’s continued quality improvement commitment
Confirm compliance with accreditation expectations and provide counsel on issues that require immediate attention
Review and update the relationship between the institution and the Commission