1 / 7

The NASPAA Accreditation Site Visit: Deeds and Words

The NASPAA Accreditation Site Visit: Deeds and Words. Catherine Horiuchi, DPA Associate Dean, Graduate Management Programs School of Management University of San Francisco 2012 NASPAA Annual Conference Austin TX October 18-20. NASPAA Site Visit March 21-23, 2012.

dulcea
Download Presentation

The NASPAA Accreditation Site Visit: Deeds and Words

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation 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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The NASPAA Accreditation Site Visit: • Deeds and Words • Catherine Horiuchi, DPA • Associate Dean, Graduate Management Programs • School of Management • University of San Francisco • 2012 NASPAA Annual Conference Austin TX October 18-20

  2. NASPAA Site Visit March 21-23, 2012 • A Singular Event Addressing All Questions Regarding Our SSR, COPRA’s IR, and Our Response to the IR • Preparation was fundamental and began as soon as hosting the site visit was confirmed Precursors • COPRA IR review “all hands” • COPRA liaison contact(s) • Faculty consensus (roles) • Program response to IR • Information gathering, analysis, discussion

  3. Preliminary Schedule

  4. How We Prepared • Logistics • Site visit chair contacted (often), arranged SVT travel and lodging, booked workspaces, meeting rooms, snacks, etc. • Limited time so needed to confirm schedule addressed SVT priorities and areas of greatest interest • “deeds not words”: SVT could verify anything, doing more than following up on IR questions • “know and do”: SVT could ask for documentation regarding any competency, not just the one described in SSR (operational definition, collected evidence of learning, analysis of evidence, analysis applied via program change)

  5. Preparations • Expected SVT to ask for confirmation, clarification, evidence that SSR and IR response accurately portray our program • With the new online data entry, no SSR Volumes 1 & 2 • Meetings (faculty, staff, students, administration, board, support svcs) • Dedicated room with binders of anticipated supporting materials • Site visitor flash drives withelectronic copies of • SSR, COPRA IR & Response • Syllabi & CVs

  6. How It Went On The Ground • Glitches and Unexpected Requests • Not many, but none is preferred. • Video conference fizzle • Our report on faculty assignments included much USF-specific data, had to be recast to clearly portray requested info • Requested data confirming students admitted met our admissions criteria, and we had no prepared report or spreadsheet of admits • One critical issue regarding SSR appendices and online system (SSR included a few major appendices rather than “illustrative examples” and “basis of judgment” upload buttons; SVT tried “click here” buttons but nothing there)

  7. Lessons Learned • “NASPAA Accredited” • Make good use of COPRA liaison • Call on institutional supports • Assure and confirm specific data and reports are available to COPRA, SVT • Listen closely, read closely, ask questions • There is no such thing as being over-prepared (schedules, TOCs, checklists) • The goal of the site visit is a solid report; the site visit process is not over until the SVT submits its final report to COPRA

More Related