Systems Portfolio Index

Indexing your Systems Portfolio to show compliance with the Commission’s Five Criteria for Accreditation

For most of the institutions participating in it, AQIP functions both as a quality assurance and a quality improvement program. Thus institutions using AQIP to maintain their accreditation from The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools need to demonstrate clearly that their college or university continues to meets the Commission’s Criteria for Accreditation.

To help document this compliance, AQIP needs you to provide us a simple Index to the Five Criteria for Accreditation along with your Systems Portfolio. This separate 3 - 5 page Index will allow AQIP’s Systems Appraisal team to efficiently review the evidence of your continued compliance with the Commission’s Criteria for Accreditation. We need your Index at the same time you submit your Portfolio for a Systems Appraisal.

Bear in mind that evidence, as we are using the word, refers to more than simple claim. Providing evidence means that your Systems Portfolio presents the facts and logic upon which any claims rest. Thus your Portfolio needs to do more than simply assert "We have effective systems for assessing student learning." Rather, you need to explain who you assess, how you assess, how frequently you assess, how broadly assessment is deployed across the institution, what results you’re getting, and how you use the data to improve and to communicate your effectiveness publicly, A description of details like these provide evidence for the broad claim. The Systems Appraisal team will trust that your descriptions of institutional practices, activities, and systems are accurate, and therefore provide trustworthy evidence that you meet the Commission’s Criteria, but the team cannot make this determination unless your Portfolio presents or summarizes real evidence.

Your Index should provide a series of "bullets" (typically four or five) under each of the Criteria’s Core Components, each bullet concisely reporting or summarizing what appears in a specific section of your Systems Portfolio. Following each bullet you should include, in brackets, the specific questions where this evidence appears. If appropriate, you may reference in your Index evidence that does not appear in your Systems Portfolio, but only if it is available to the public (and therefore to the Systems Appraisers) on the Internet. If you do this, provide the web address (e.g., www.AQIP.org/downloads) in the bracket in place of the AQIP question reference.

Evidence demonstrating you meet Commission accreditation expectations is likely to be distributed throughout your Systems Portfolio. Your Index needs to collect references to this evidence, under the five Criteria and their Core Components, so that the Appraisal Team can evaluate comprehensive compliance. You are free in your Index to reference your answer to any Systems Portfolio question as support to demonstrate you meeting any of the Criteria for Accreditation. If appropriate, you can even reference the same Portfolio sections for different Core Components. It is likely that certain sections of your Systems Portfolio will contain much of the evidence for one or another of the Criteria for Accreditation.

A Systems Portfolio Index Template is available in the Systems Portfolio category of the Downloads section on the AQIP Website. This template lists the five Criteria for Accreditation and Core Components under each Criterion. All you need to do is add your 4-5 bullets under each Core Component and the bracketed reference to the Systems Portfolio question where the evidence for each bullet appears. When you’ve completed the Index, email the file to AQIP@hlcommission.org, making the subject of your email "Portfolio Index."

Evidence that your institution is meeting the Commission’s common Criteria for Accreditation is most likely to appear in certain sections of your Systems Portfolio. The following may make constructing your Index easier.

Criteria for Accreditation and AQIP Category Correlation

Criterion One: Mission and Integrity

AQIP Category One — Helping Students Learn
AQIP Category Two — Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives
AQIP Category Three — Understanding Students' and other Stakeholders' Needs
AQIP Category Five — Leading and Communicating

Criterion Two: Preparing for the Future

AQIP Category Six — Supporting Institutional Operations
AQIP Category Seven — Measuirng Effectiveness
AQIP Category Eight — Planning Continuous Improvement
AQIP Category Nine — Building Collaborative Relationships

Criterion Three: Student Learning and Effective Teaching

AQIP Category One — Helping Students Learn
AQIP Category Three — Understanding Students' and other Stakeholders' Needs
AQIP Category Five — Leading and Communicating
AQIP Category Seven — Measuirng Effectiveness

Criterion Four: Acquisition, Discovery, and Application of Knowledge

AQIP Category One — Helping Students Learn
AQIP Category Two — Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives
AQIP Category Three — Understanding Students' and other Stakeholders' Needs
AQIP Category Four — Valuing People

Criterion Five: Engagement and Service

AQIP Category Two — Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives
AQIP Category Three — Understanding Students' and other Stakeholders' Needs
AQIP Category Four — Valuing People
AQIP Category Five — Leading and Communicating
AQIP Category Seven — Measuirng Effectiveness
AQIP Category Nine — Building Collaborative Relationships

In addition to the above correspondances, pay attention to the fact that:

AQIP category context (C) and process (P) responses often contain evidence that relate directly to the Criteria’s Core Components.

AQIP result (R) responses may provide very strong evidence for any of the five Criteria.

AQIP improvement (I) responses may provide excellent evidence for Criterion Two and Criterion Three in particular.