1 / 54

Preparing Your Self-Study: 2011 Criteria

Understand the process of preparing for a self-study, including planning, writing, and organizing the required documentation. Learn about different approaches and best practices for completing a comprehensive and user-friendly self-study report.

jacklindsey
Download Presentation

Preparing Your Self-Study: 2011 Criteria

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. Preparing Your Self-Study:2011 Criteria Washington Marriott Hotel August 4-5, 2011

  2. Planning for writing the self-study How long does it take? • Experience suggests about 18 months to 2 years • You will use a set of established criteria, developed by peer academics and practitioners, and approved by USDE, to organize this examination • Think about what data/info you will need • What will your outcome measures be? • Make a checklist by criterion • Who has the data? Often spread across university, esp. for first-timers • Strategy/leadership • Who will do the work?

  3. Diving in: writing the self-study (1 of 2) • Documentation request: a piece of information, specifically requested in the criteria document, that provides evidence/information about your overall compliance with the criterion • List and answer ALL documentation requests: “NA” is fine or “see Criterion x.x” is fine. Don’t skip any.

  4. Diving in: writing the self-study (2 of 2) • READ each documentation request and answer it directly • If the request asks you to LIST, then you should list… not all answers require narrative • If requested info doesn’t quite fit your mold or fully capture you, use narrative to clearly explain why and then describe how your setting operates

  5. Workgroup/committee – most common approach Strengths • Easier workload on individuals – (faculty and staff make up majority of workgroup) • Inclusive of array of opinions by nature (other constituents have strong roles) • Opportunity for individual responsibility and group participation: something to react to and edit; can have sub-committees, divide work by criteria Weaknesses • Time spent in meetings, group process • Potential lack of individually-vested responsibility • Editing role becomes very important!

  6. Single, dedicated individual approach Strengths • Single authority (consultant, faculty on release time, Emeritus faculty) • Ease of organization • Single point of contact • Consistency and follow-through Weaknesses • Individual often not steeped in organizational culture • May not get all nuances if not involved in daily activities • Harder to get buy-in/ investment from faculty and other constituents: “it’s the consultant’s job” • Site visitors can tell when a single person wrote the document • Hard to make this approach work without modification

  7. The best approach? Combine the strengths! • Single individual with authority to “crack the whip” • Single, final editorial eye • Broad involvement and distributed workload

  8. Best practices • Include constituents in working groups • mix of faculty, staff, students, university personnel, community members • not just “read this and comment” but active role in drafting/ shaping • Involve the dissenters • give them a specific task • Post on intranet or internet • Provide specific guidance or propose questions to readers/editors • Multiple drafts are a MUST

  9. Document format (1 of 2) Think like a site visitor: How easy is the document to read? • Font type, size & paragraph spacing is up to you • 10 pt or 12 pt is best • appendix materials, templates, charts may use smaller/ different font • single-spaced may be hard to read • Double-side the document and appendices • Proofread for spelling, grammar, typographical errors

  10. Document format (2 of 2) Make it user friendly! • Start each criterion (1.1, 1.2, etc.) on a new page • Separate all criteria (1.1, 1.2, etc.) and each appendix entry with a tab • Provide a Table of Contents for the appendices • Binding is your choice, but spiral binding wins the current popularity contest

  11. Technical matters • Must send each site visitor & CEPH office a CD or USB copy of the final self-study • CD or USB must contain org charts in a useable format so that CEPH can insert them in the final site visit team’s report • Usable = Word or closely compatible format • Usable = B&W, no color, no shading • May mean including an extra copy of the org chart on the CD or USB if charts are embedded in the document as PDFs • Test the org charts you send—can you cut and paste them easily into a Word document?

  12. Where do templates/tables go? • Completed data templates should generally be in the body, not the appendix • Very long lists (eg, faculty research) can go in appendix, but should be referenced in the text

  13. Appendix possibilities • Full list of student practicum sites • Student handbook • Practicum & culminating handbooks/guidelines/evaluation forms • Strategic plan: program, college and/or university • SPH/PHP brochure or recruitment handout • Survey instruments: exit, alum, employer • Curricular requirements, recommended schedule or advising worksheet • Policy statements referenced in body that are 10 pages or less (include longer documents in the on-site resource file)

  14. How strict is the page limit? 150 pages is the goal! • Think of the spirit of the recommendation. Where can you be more succinct? • Good documentation and well-prepared visitors are more important than counting pages • Many schools and programs have prepared strong documents under 150 pages. It can be done! • DO NOT shrink font to meet the limit • DO NOT leave out important information to meet the limit

  15. Guiding stylistic principles • CLARITY • BREVITY • SPECIFICITY • ACTIVE VOICE

  16. Other “formal” considerations • Proofread! (already mentioned, but worth saying again) • Very important: verify consistency across criteria • eg, # of faculty used to calculate SFR in Criterion 1.7 should be the same as faculty listed in Template 4.1.1 & 4.1.2, and same as names in research & service lists (Criteria 3.1 & 3.2) • Cross-check all references to appendices and resource files • Check your math in tables and data (eg, #s of students and faculty) • Remove repetition! Can reference other sections, but document should be succinct, clear and flowing

  17. 1.1: Mission • Straightforward, easy-to-follow set of documentation requests: the challenge to this one is in the CONTENT • Spend time on your mission, goals and objectives. This time spent WILL pay off • MeasurableObjectives: Be sure that reviewers can clearly see the timeline and specific target for each objective (Criterion 1.1.c) • Objectives written to say “who does how much of what by when” • More general objectives with target outcomes, dates, responsible parties listed underneath (or in table format)

  18. 1.2: Evaluation & Planning • Describe how the process works in succinct narrative • “Big picture” • Feedback loop • Examples help! • Outcome measures: table format • Actual data for measurable objectives that were defined in Criterion 1.1 • Sufficient narrative on self-study process to show strong process, broad involvement

  19. 1.3: Institutional Environment • Brief history of institution, salient facts: #/names of grad/undergrad colleges, etc. Give reviewers a sense of the overall institution • Org charts: • More than one may be needed • Reporting lines should be clear • Description of university processes: this is about lines and decision-making authority/responsibility, NOT about operational details • Don’t detail budgetary operations here; just explain how the money flows and who has the authority to make decisions

  20. 1.4: Organization and Administration • All accrediting bodies for institution as a whole (not just health related) • CLARITY in org charts: who reports to whom? Where are the faculty? • Description of roles and responsibilities: this should elucidate—no pro forma! • Grievance policy: summarize, make entire policy available in appendix or resource file • Number of grievances presented should be auditable on site by site visit team, if needed

  21. 1.5: Governance • Request for composition of committees AND current membership • Composition = the formula for populating the committee (eg, 2 faculty from each concentration, appointed by the dean for 3-year terms) • Membership = who is serving now • Both must be provided • Students should also be included in the committees’ composition/membership • In addition, provide sufficient detail on student-run groups that operate in addition to the “traditional” committees

  22. 1.6: Fiscal Resources • Must have adequate financial resources to fulfill MGO • Readers should be able to move between the budget description and budget table and understand what’s in each line and how it’s decided • Answer all elements of Criterion 1.6.a and others that are unique to your setting, if applicable • Eliminate blank lines in the template • Use footnotes to explain confusing lines in the template • Common issue: Is overall budget sufficiently stable?

  23. 1.7: Faculty and Other Resources (1 of 2) • Must have adequate personnel and other resources to fulfill MGO • Required minimum faculty levels: these faculty must be trained and experienced in public health • Common issues: • Are there enough faculty to provide instruction, advisement, research supervision, etc.? • Are the facilities/space adequate? • Follow the instructions carefully for Criteria 1.7.a and 1.7.b. These responses need to be clear • Be succinct in other resource discussions: library, computing, etc. Think about what the team needs to know to verify compliance

  24. 1.7: Faculty and Other Resources (2 of 2)

  25. 1.8: Diversity • Must demonstrate commitment to diversity and cultural competence, within context of institution’s mission • Some ways to accomplish these aims: • Include diversity and cultural competence considerations in curriculum • Recruit/retain diverse faculty, staff and students • Follow policies that are free of harassment/discrimination • Demonstrate in the types of research, service and workforce development activities conducted • Refer to Diversity FAQ found with Template 1.8.1

  26. 2.1: MPH Degree • Simple one: all we need is the matrix (Template 2.1.1) and a reference to your bulletin, catalog, handbook or other info that lays out requirements/curricula • Every line in Template 2.1.1 represents a concentration or track. Throughout the self-study, site visitors will refer to this matrix to ensure that each line represented is documented in terms of, eg, # of students, SFR, common competencies, etc.

  27. 2.2: Program Length • Answer honestly: if you had degree programs during the self-study period that did not require 42 semester credits, count and include all of those graduates in your response to Criterion 2.2.c

  28. 2.3: Public Health Core Knowledge • ID the classes that cover the five core areas in Template 2.3.1 • Must cover all options for covering the core, for all professional degrees • Be clear about any policies regarding waiver of core courses. Records should be available on-site for audit by site visitors • Present in table form • Course syllabi: not needed in body – include in on-site resource file

  29. 2.4: Practical Skills • Be succinct but provide enough information to explain the practicum experience from selection to evaluation • Agencies and preceptors for past 2 years should be comprehensively listed, in table format • Clearly indicate which professional degrees are covered by each set of policies and procedures • All PH professional degrees must be addressed (eg, DrPH)

  30. 2.5: Culminating Experience • Describe how the process works, milestones, timing and responsible parties • Accurately characterize WHAT students do & produce. Especially important when culminating experience is related to practicum • Clearly describe how it is evaluated (using what standards/by whom?) • All PH professional degrees must be addressed (eg, DrPH)

  31. 2.6: Competencies • List for MPH/DrPH as a whole in Criterion 2.6.a • List for each concentration in Criterion 2.6.b. This includes BS, PhD and MS concentrations. • Matrix linking learning experiences and competencies identified in 2.6.a and 2.6.b

  32. 2.7: Assessment Procedures (1 of 2) • Describe methods of evaluating “student progress in achieving the expected competencies” - do not focus on how you monitor student progress through your curriculum • Focus on specific ways you determine whether students have gained competency, esp. through practicum and culminating • How are those evaluated? Do the evaluations of those components reference competencies? • Other methods: competency check-off sheets, advisor/advisee meetings that involve competency discussions, written comprehensive exams, etc.

  33. 2.7: Assessment Procedures (2 of 2) • Graduation & job placement rates: VERY IMPORTANT • MUST present an easy-to-follow grad rate – use Template 2.7.1 • For new SPH/PHP, may not have 3 years of graduation data • 2.7.d: certification of professional competence. This is NA for most degree programs - possible exceptions include a health education MPH that sends students to the CHES or industrial hygiene in SPH

  34. SPH only: Other Professional Degrees/Other Bachelors Degrees (2.8 and 2.10) • MHA, communication disorders, physical therapy, exercise science, etc. • These were already/also listed in Template 2.1.1 • Brief description (list courses and highlight relevant elements) of how students “acquire a public health orientation” • Equivalent to at least 3 semester-credit hours

  35. Bachelors Degrees in Public Health (2.8 PHP and 2.9 SPH) • At least 12 semester-credit hours of coursework that address the 5 core areas • One course on epidemiology, specifically • Required coursework (core and public health electives) and capstone experience must be taught/supervised by faculty documented in Criteria 4.1.a and 4.1.b • Specific support and resources for baccalaureate degree programs

  36. Academic Degrees (2.9 PHP and 2.11 SPH) • These were already/also listed in Template 2.1.1 • The degree name (eg, MS) doesn’t automatically make it academic! • Analysis is based on competencies, curriculum, intended path for graduates • Brief description (list courses and highlight relevant elements) of how students “acquire a public health orientation” • At least 3 semester-credit hours covering breadth of public health • Equivalent to at least 3 semester-credit hours covering epidemiology

  37. Doctoral Degrees(2.10 PHP and 2.12 SPH) • Easy to follow documentation requests • Especially important to provide enough info to allow site visitors to evaluate the curricula • See TA paper on doctoral degrees for more info

  38. Doctoral Degrees (2.12 SPH ONLY) • For SPH only: • Must offer doctoral degrees in or related to at least 3 of 5 core public health knowledge areas • For initial accreditation, one doctoral degree must have graduated at least one student; two others must be fully functional with at least one student enrolled in each

  39. Joint Degrees: (2.11 PHP and 2.13 SPH) • Breadth of all public health knowledge in all joint degree options (eg, MD/MPH, MBA/MPH, MSW/MPH) • Equivalency to separate MPH degree • Looking for rational explanation of credit sharing

  40. Distance Education/Executive Degree Programs (2.12 PHP and 2.14 SPH) • These degrees will have also been addressed in other criteria (eg, total credits, core coverage, practicum, culminating, etc.) • See TA Paper on Distance Education for more information • Detailed response: • thorough description of program, its faculty, its students • model or methods used • rationale for offering this degree • administrative/student supports • evaluation of academic rigor • monitoring equivalence/comparability to other offerings • evaluation of educational outcomes • evaluation of format/methodologies

  41. 3.1: Research • Policies, procedures and practices: broad ranging • What to include in Template 3.1.1? • Separate out research grants from service/workforce development EVEN if your institution thinks it’s all the same • Eg, faculty work with local HD to design a smoking cessation program = service; faculty evaluate that smoking cessation program = research • What research counts when faculty have multiple university responsibilities? No firm formula • Does the research inform, provide examples for PH classes taught? • Is there actual or potential PH student involvement in the research?

  42. 3.2: Service • CEPH may define service differently from you/your university • Service = application of knowledge and expertise to community or professional settings with knowledge not being general and no new research being generated (eg, volunteerism at a food bank where person works to set up system of volunteering (ie, not carrying the food)) • Service ≠ university-based committee work (list committee work in Criterion 1.5) • Service = projects that fit with mission, goals & objectives • Service ≠ compilation of individual faculty efforts • Template is optional

  43. 3.3: Workforce Development • Description in Criterion 3.3.b should provide evidence of SPH- or PHP-based policies, practices etc. for workforce development • Needs assessment explanation is key • Opportunities for individuals who work in public health to maintain and advance their knowledge of public health without pursuing an MPH or other advanced degree • This is NOT simply a list of the presentations and CME lectures that each faculty member has given, but a programmatic, public health mission-driven approach • List will provide evidence of what the policies and practices produced • Providing attendee numbers for programs is important

  44. 4.1: Faculty Qualifications • Complete all columns of Template 4.1.1 • This table is critical to evaluating faculty, so the easier it is to use, the happier readers will be • Help site visitors evaluate the “blend” of your faculty: specific training, experience, # with degrees in public health, etc.

  45. 4.2: Faculty Policies & Procedures • Include descriptions of mentoring; reference incentive or intramural grant programs • Description of instructional support available and if it’s used • Make description of faculty evaluation process simple and clear • indicate regularity • levels through which it progresses • what it is tied to (eg, annual merit increases)

  46. 4.3: Student Recruitment & Admissions • Be detailed without being overwhelming • Templates/quantitative info are very important here • In Template 4.3.1, readers are looking for the flow from application to enrollment • In Template 4.3.2, readers are looking for the viability of degree programs: what are the level totals of enrolled students from year to year?

  47. 4.4: Advising & Career Counseling • Be honest, quantitative & thoughtful in presenting student satisfaction with advisement • CEPH considers career counseling to be important, even if your student body is already working

  48. Self-assessments in each criterion • Be analytical! • Answer with one of four possible findings • Met, Met with Commentary, Partially Met, Not Met (see definitions in CEPH’s procedures manual) • There’s always room for improvement: finding yourself “met” on all criteria generally evidences a lack of analytical thought and may be cited as a weakness by site visitors • Strengths, weaknesses and plans should be included in the response • Don’t present new information: just argue for a finding based on the info already presented

  49. Don’t reinvent the wheel • Per CEPH procedures, all final self-studies are public documents, available to anyone - all accredited SPH/PHP must post information on website about how to request a copy of the self-study • Some institutions will e-mail you the file upon request, others keep self-study posted on their website • Ask an institution that’s been through the process recently • Ask an institution that’s “like” you • Let CEPH know if you have problems

  50. Important tips • Don’t copy your last self-study • Don’t hide problems by not answering the documentation requests • Do ask CEPH staff for help when you’re stuck, particularly after receiving preliminary reviewer comments • Do consider all comments from self-study preliminary reviewers and address them as appropriate • Don’t write a letter explaining why you feel that certain preliminary reviewer comments weren’t correct or applicable

More Related