By Dr. Edwin R. Massey, President, and Mr. Robert W. Moses, Dean of Planning and Program Development, Indian River Community College
In the hallowed archives of many colleges and universities, volumes of dated planning documents exist on dust-covered shelves. Well-intended state policy makers, governing boards, accountability-sensitive administrators, and other constituencies concerned with institutional purpose and responsibilities have requested the development of these voluminous writings.
Generally-accepted research techniques were selected by these postsecondary institutions along with appropriate assessment tools to identify existing problems or new opportunities. The corresponding implementation plans to achieve goals and objectives were also adequate to improve the institutional effectiveness of educational programs, student support services, and administrative processes. Too often, however, these strategic plans were not fully implemented, evaluated, and the results used to improve educational programs, services, and operations. Using the phrase expressed by SACS peer committee evaluators who have observed similar situations, the loop was not closed!
An analogy can be drawn with the traditional planning cycle, be it the model year, production season, or federal tax year, a summative evaluation is conducted. The purpose of this analysis is to determine if corporate objectives have been accomplished. Significant concerns to maintain fiscal corporate stability are: controlling and reducing budgeted expenses, inneasing productivity and profit, and maintaining or increasing the level of consumer satisfaction to ensure stronger competitive advantage. The results are used to develop objectives for the next planning cycle to improve the quality of products, services, and operations. Business and industry close the loop for reasons as compelling as those confronting higher education.
From the postsecondary educational perspective, closing the loop and evaluating the accomplishment of each institutionwide and unit objective not only facilitates documentation of accomplishments, but also sets the direction for the future growth and development of the institution. These colleges and universities set measurable objectives to improve performance in areas such as percent of budget expended for direct instructional cost, percent of budget allocated for personnel cost, retention and completion rates, licensure passing rates, job placement rates, and academic performance of community college graduates at four-year institutions. When weaknesses are detected, these institutions establish objectives to correct them during the next planning cycle.
Unfortunately, collegiate institutions often neglect to use the results or outcomes to improve the effectiveness of educational programs, student support services, and administrative processes. When SACS peer evaluators observe this oversight, they include recommendations in their committee report based on related 'must' statements in the Criteria for Accreditation. Due to the nature of such recommendations, two or more planning cycles (years) may be required for institutions to document for the College Commission that this inadequacy has been corrected.
Closing the loop as an efficient response to SACS criteria also benefits institutions of higher education in Florida and in other states that have enacted performance-based budgeting/incentive funding procedures and required accountability reports.
Institutions that 'plan to plan' but then place these documents on the shelf do not close the loop. Lack of institutional follow-through jeopardizes compliance with provisions in the SACS Criteria, Section 111, Institutional Effectiveness , risks loss of constituency approval of accountability reports and exposes the institution to financial crisis through lessened performance-based incentive funding.
For more information, contact:
Commission on Colleges
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
1866 Southern Lane
Decatur, Georgia 30033-4097