Sovereignty without sovereignty: Derrida’s Declarations Of ...
Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University “Service is Sovereignty” Caula Beyl Director,...
Transcript of Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University “Service is Sovereignty” Caula Beyl Director,...
Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University“Service is Sovereignty”
Caula BeylDirector, Institutional Planning, Research, & Evaluation
Enhancing University Effectiveness with
Title III Support
Title III Project Enhancing University Effectiveness
In 2002-3, Alabama A&M University received Title III support to develop a better infrastructure for enhancing university effectiveness and assessment
At that time, Alabama A&M University was due to go through SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation in 2004.
The functional state of the Office of Institutional Planning, Research, and Evaluation was not good and it was apparent that something needed to be done quickly.
History of Institutional Effectiveness at AAMU
In 1989, the Office of Institutional Planning and Research was established separate from its former home, the Budgeting Office
In 1992, just two years before the previous round of SACS reaffirmation, it was expanded to include evaluation and became the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation
The Director of OIPRE left the university abruptly in 2001 after a gradual erosion of space, personnel, equipment, and budget for the office
OIPRE Early in 2002
When I joined OIPRE in January of 2002 as Director, – the office leadership had
been vacant for 6 months, – we had one old and one
ancient computer, one administrative assistant, one phone, and
– nine locked file cabinets whose keys had been lost
OIPRE was located in one back room in the Graduate Office
As an entity on campus, OIPRE was virtually invisible
Revitalization of OIPRE
Revitalization of OIPRE required commitment of– Budgetary support– Additional personnel– Office space– Equipment– Recognition as an entity
OIPRE was reorganized into two major divisions – Institutional Data and Assessment
Without Title III support, none of this would have been possible
Dr. Subodh SharmaInstitutional Data Coordinator
Dr. Sherrell PriceAssessment Coordinator
Enhancing University Effectiveness Involved Integration of Three Major
Functions
Planning
Institutional Research
Evaluation and Assessment
From 2002 to the present, all of our Title III objectives have involved enhancement of these three functions as well as the expertise of OIPRE personnel to conduct these functions
Development of a Data Warehouse
In the past, AAMU has lacked credibility with respect to the validity of its data
This was the result of many problems
– Antiquated mainframe system
– No direct access to data on the mainframe
– Inability to obtain data electronically
– No controls on quality of data input
– In response to statutory requests, administration obtained data from all over campus
What data were reported depended upon what day it was, who provided it, and a plethora of other conditions, but there was little consistency.
Development and Adoption of University Wide Policies Regarding
Data
Nine policies received unanimous approval by the Planning and Budgeting Committee in 2003
Institutional philosophy developed that data should be
used…
To develop strategic documents
To support of Reaffirmation of SACS Accreditation
To make planning decisions To forecast trends in
enrollment and retention To aid in program
accreditation To support grant writing efforts
Under the new criteria, AAMU had to develop a QEP
Focus 2015 Strategic Plan
Frameworks for Continuous Quality Improvement
Blueprints for ExcellenceQuality Enhancement Plan
Quality Enhancement PlanAlabama Agricultural and Mechanical University
“Service is Sovereignty”
Enhancing Academic Support Services and the Campus Culture
Three major on-line reporting systems for documenting university
effectiveness
Planning and Budgeting System– First implemented in the 2004-5 budget year– Used successfully in 2005-6 and most recently in 2006-7– Version 2.0 is being tested now and will replace 1.0 in
about one month Learning Outcome Reporting System
– Will be fully implemented incrementally as each program goes through the cyclic program review process
– Allows open access to view outcomes and assessment Quality Enhancement Plan Reporting System
– Allows every level of the university community to participate in reporting QEP initiatives
– Documents activities and outcomes for SACS
Why did we believe an on-line planning and budgeting system was necessary?
SACS criteria require... An institution must prepare
an appropriately detailed annual budget.
Its preparation and execution must be preceded by sound educational planning.
Procedures for budget planning must be evaluated regularly.
Principles of Accreditation state…
C.R. #5 requires an “ongoing, integrated, and
institution-wide planning and evaluation process which informs budgeting decisions”
C.R. #11 Financial Stability“There is a need to provide clear
evidence that the budgeting process is preceded by sound planning”
AAMU took a hard look at the existing process
Old System: Annual and strategic plans were
submitted as Word tables and then posted on the web page
Budget requests and five year projections were submitted on a diskette to the Budget Officer
However, it was clear that there was little systematic link between the processes of planning and budgeting
Could we create a stronger link?
University Budgeting Office and OIPRE met to:
1. Develop an on-line mechanism for linking planning documents to budgets
2. Integrate planning and budgeting into one system of data collection to:• Examine productivity of units in accomplishing
their goals and meeting expected outcomes
• Use real data to reallocate from ineffective units to more effective units
3. Make first steps toward ensuring that increases in personnel are tied to planning
New Planning and Budgeting Process
New process Based on budgetary units, not organizational units.
The new planning and budgeting screen captures– Strategic 5-year plans – Annual planning outcomes and effectiveness– Current year’s budget requests are now linked to
specific strategic focus areas and QEP goals– 5-year projected budgets– Beginnings of a position control system
If you spend money at AAMU, you better have a
plan!
Software Development
Development Phases OIPRE and the Budgeting Office developed a
conceptual framework and rough screen layouts Actual software development was outsourced to:
MindGate Technologieswww.mindgate.com1-800-MGT-6840 ext. 800
The same basic on-line architecture and concepts were used to develop systems for documenting learning outcomes and quality enhancement plan progress
On-Line Planning and Budgeting System
Adoption of the Planning and Budgeting System was approved by the Planning and Budgeting Council on March 23, 2004
A beta version of the new system was demonstrated to the SACS visiting team during their on site visit
University-wide use began in September for the 2004-5 fiscal year
Getting to the Planning and Budgeting System
www.aamu.edu and then “Institutional Planning and Research”
This is the planning screen as it first appears in itscollapsed mode. The buttons in the left margin perform view, save, hide/show, new, delete, and reorder functions.
Every unit goal is related to a Focus Area or a QEP Goal and has its own objectives, assessment method, etc.
In version 1.0, each focus area was assigned a budget percentage to estimate spending on each Unit Goal and Focus Area
Clicking on the icon to the left selects a text box.
The arrow tools move the item up in order or down.
Only the budget manager, your dean or director, your Vice President, and the University Budget Officer will have access to budget information.
Line items can be expanded to include details such as personnel names or titles, percentage, amount, and thetotal will then appear in the line item summary
Report formats will allow summarization by any of the budget categories across the projected years
For example, a report summarizing by “function”
The Administrator’s Tool
The administrator’s tool allows authorized persons to:
• Set the current year
• Identify the phase of the year(planning vs. reporting)
• Create a budget manager’s list and oversight list
• Reset passwords
• Change values for fringe benefits
The new software is faster than earlier versions of the other systems because it takes advantage of a new architecture
Advantages of an On-Line Planning and
Budgeting System
Direct linkage of planning to budgeting Better tracking of unit performance in relationship to goals and
focus areas Spending on focus areas can be tracked Can enable later personnel position control Timely compliance is tied to budget access SACS Documentation of annual planning, assessment, and
budgeting
Students are the heart of
the University and student
learning is our main job!
The second on-line system developed was the Student
Learning Outcome Reporting System because…
Our first attempts at documenting learning outcomes were done using word tables which were uploaded to the OIPRE web site
Problems: Lack of expertise in word tables, alteration of forms, massive alteration of forms,
editing was difficult, if changes had to be made, the tables had to be reloaded
The on-line interactive method of capturing learning outcomes allows public access and viewing and follows the same design pattern and the planning and budgeting system
This system is now undergoing the enhancements in speed and architecture that were implemented for the Planning and Budgeting System so Version 2 will have a new look and feel for 2006
Quality Enhancement Plan Reporting System
SACS requires an “Impact Report” five years after the initial approval and implementation of the QEP
This report details QEP Implementation
Most importantly, the effect of its implementation on student learning
Key features of the QEP Documentation System
Since the QEP development was broad-based and implementation of the QEP involves every facet of the University, any person involved at the University should be able to report QEP initiatives.
– Faculty - Board of Trustees– Staff - Alumni– Students - Administration
Log-in and making documentation entries in the system requires the QEP Initiative Owner to have an AAMU e-mail address, but viewing will be completely open to the public
Advantages of the System
It allows those involved in QEP Initiatives to showplace their work and view the work of others
OIPRE is able to document outcomes, impact on the university, and see a track record of sustained progress in each area
Provides a structure for assessing progress so that the university may change funding priorities as necessary
The execution and reporting phases are shared by the whole university, consistent with the philosophy of the QEP development phase.
Assessment Achievements
Improvements in the course evaluation system including collaborative intervention strategies
Development of an Entry to Exit student assessment system in cooperation with University College
Development of a survey service for the campus Approval and adoption of a system for cyclic
program review and first stages of academic support system cyclic review
First steps in development of a model to predict student retention
Fre
shm
anS
opho
mor
eJu
nior
Computer Literacy AssessmentSpeech and Hearing Screening
CIRP COMPASSDISCOVER
LASSILearning Strengths Inventory
StrengthsQuest
Operation Jumpstart
Career Development Clearance
Alumni Affairs Clearance
Cashier/Business Office Clearance
Financial Aid Clearance
Graduating Seniors
Career Development RegistrationConfident Graduate Kit
ORIENTATION
Servant Leadership Module
Your First College Year Survey
COMPASS
Program Major Competency Exam
or Portfolio orCapstone Course
EXIT SURVEY
College Student Survey
Leadership Activity
CDS 301 (Recommended)
College-BASE General Education Assessment
Major Confirmation
Service Learning Experience
Peer Mentoring with StrengthsQuest
Cultural Experience
Peer Review of StrengthsQuest Profile
Each semester:
Identification of ‘at risk’ students for support
Priority registration of academic achievers
Undergraduate Academic Milestones
Sen
ior
First semester Second semester
Approved by Academic Standards May 2006
Development of the Survey Services
Customer service surveys of academic support units
Safe campus survey of both faculty/staff and students
Non-returning students survey
Campus satisfaction surveys
OIPRE
Administrators
Students
Data Warehousing
Forecasting
UniversityAssessment
Statutory Reporting
Survey ServicesProgram and Unit
Review
Faculty
Staff
President
Board of Trustees
Public