July 17, 2017 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL John Tafaro, President Chatfield College 20918 State Route 251 St. Martin, OH 45118 Dear President Tafaro: This letter is formal notification of action taken by the Higher Learning Commission ( HLC or the Commission ) Board of Trustees ( the Board ) concerning Chatfield College ( the College or the institution ). During its meeting on June 29, 2017, the Board placed Chatfield College on Probation because the College is out of compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation and the Core Components identified in the Board s findings as outlined below. This action is effective as of the date the action was taken. In taking this action, the Board considered materials from the most recent comprehensive evaluation, including but not limited to: the Assurance Filing the College submitted; the report from the comprehensive evaluation team; the report of the Institutional Actions Council ( IAC ) Hearing Committee; and the institutional responses to these reports. The Board required that the College submit an Interim Report no later than December 15, 2017 providing evidence that it has developed and adopted a Credit Hour policy that aligns with federal definitions. The College is required to submit an Assurance Filing no later than October 1, 2018, or at least eight weeks prior to the comprehensive evaluation, providing evidence that the College has ameliorated the findings of non-compliance identified in this action that resulted in the imposition of Probation and the findings of Met with Concerns, and providing evidence that the College meets the Criteria for Accreditation, the Core Components, Federal Compliance Requirements, and the Assumed Practices. Included in this report should be evidence of the following: All adjunct faculty members are classified as employees instead of independent contractors and are actively engaged in the various activities that a liberal arts institution expects of its faculty, including: o evidence of job requirements; o evidence of professional development; o evidence showing that adjunct faculty members are integrated with full-time faculty members; and o the role of adjunct faculty in shared governance (Core Component 2.A); The development of an appropriate ratio of full- to part-time (including adjunct) faculty for the College and evidence of progress toward that ratio (Core Component 3.C);
President Tafaro, July 17, 2017 2 A sufficient number of full- and part-time faculty members to properly support curriculum development, its delivery, and appropriate curricular revision based on assessment of student learning outcomes and other relevant data collected and analyzed. The College should demonstrate it is in the early stages of developing an ethos that supports faculty development as a means of improving the learning environment for its students (Core Component 3.C); Documentation of written faculty evaluation processes and criteria for promotions in rank (Core Component 3.C); All faculty personnel files are complete and in compliance with Commission policies (Core Component 3.C); The College provides appropriate training for peer tutors (Core Component 3.D); The College maintains comprehensive and effective academic support services (Core Component 3.D); A program review process for evaluating the Associate of Arts program is in place and has been implemented (Core Component 4.A); Assessment of student learning uses direct measures of all courses and programs, as well as curricular and co-curricular student learning outcomes. The College should include evidence that use of these direct measures is leading to curricular and co-curricular improvements where warranted (Core Component 4.B); Assessment of student learning is faculty-driven. The College should demonstrate that it is in the early stages of developing a culture of assessment as a means of improving the learning environment for its students (Core Component 4.B); The College is establishing goals for and is systematically collecting data regarding the success of its graduates and outgoing transfer students (Core Component 4.C); The College has appropriate programs to help students persist and improve institutional retention and graduation rates (Core Component 4.C); Financial, human, and technological resources devoted to the College s academic operations and supporting infrastructure are adequate (Core Component 5.A); Development of a plan to evaluate institutional operations using direct measures, in addition to student self-reported satisfaction data (Core Component 5.A); Sufficient academic infrastructure to properly support the College s curriculum, curricular change process, and assessment of student learning outcomes (Core Component 5.A); Clear enrollment goals, disaggregated by location (Core Component 5.A); The effective integration of student learning assessments into the College s budgetary and planning processes (Core Component 5.C); Information developed from the analysis of data gathered in the College s evaluation of the persistence, retention, and graduation rate improvement programs have informed its operations, the institutional budgetary process, and related planning processes (Core Component 5.C); Strategic planning, inclusive of all stakeholders, is systematic and integrated and includes linkages to the budget, evaluation and assessment, and enrollment management (Core Component 5.D); The College is addressing the College Scorecard ratings of costs, retention rates, graduation rates, and graduate salaries (Core Component 5.D); and
President Tafaro, July 17, 2017 3 Development of a dashboard of key performance indicators used by the leadership team to make data-informed decisions and to monitor student learning and the overall student experience (Core Component 5.D). The College will host a comprehensive evaluation no later than December 2018, to determine whether the College has ameliorated the findings of non-compliance that led to the imposition of Probation and the findings of Met with Concerns, and whether the College meets the Criteria for Accreditation, and to make a recommendation about whether to remove Probation or take other action. The Board will review the documents associated with the evaluation at its June 2019 meeting to determine whether the College has ameliorated the findings of non-compliance and has demonstrated that it is now in compliance with all Criteria for Accreditation and thus whether Probation shall be removed, or if the College has not ameliorated the findings of noncompliance and demonstrated compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation, whether accreditation should be withdrawn. The Board based its action to impose Probation upon the following findings made with regard to the College: The College is out of compliance with Criterion Three, Core Component 3.C, the institution has the faculty and staff needed for effective, high-quality programs and student services, for the following reasons: The College has insufficient human resources in several areas including instruction, advising, and tutoring; There is no consistent record of or emphasis for the faculty on the importance of disciplinary currency or development; A documented process for faculty evaluation and promotion/termination is absent; and There are no minimum academic requirements or training for tutors, no integration between the academic staff and the tutoring program, and no process to evaluate the success of the tutoring program. The College is out of compliance with Criterion Four, Core Component 4.A, the institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs, for the following reasons: There is no evidence that program reviews are conducted on a regular and systematic basis; and Documentation is absent on how the success of graduates is evaluated. The College is out of compliance with Criterion Four, Core Component 4.B, the institution demonstrates a commitment to educational achievement and improvement through ongoing assessment of student learning, for the following reasons: There is no active college-wide assessment plan in operation and little progress has been made in assessment since 2011;
President Tafaro, July 17, 2017 4 Course-level student learning outcomes have not been established for all courses and there is not a system in place that allows for course level or program level assessment; In the limited examples the College provided to demonstrate assessment, indirect measures such as course grades and student satisfaction surveys were utilized; Student learning outcomes are not clearly connected to assessment of the Associate of Arts degree; Co-curricular activities (e.g., Campus Ministry, Student Orientation, etc.) do not have stated learning goals or an active assessment plan; and A clear process to analyze data collected for student learning improvement is nonexistent. The College is out of compliance with Criterion Four, Core Component 4.C, the institution demonstrates a commitment to educational improvement through ongoing attention to retention, persistence, and completion rates in its degree and certificate programs, for the following reasons: While the College has identified retention and development goals in its strategic plan, there was no documentation regarding how identified strategies will be implemented to assure goals will be met and no evidence that sufficient human and fiscal resources had been committed to reaching these goals; and There is no process to collect relevant data for evaluating the effectiveness of student support services (e.g., tutoring, academic advising) in retaining students to meet these goals and to allow for data-informed decisions for operational improvements. The College is out of compliance with Criterion Five, Core Component 5.A, the institution s resource base supports its current educational programs and its plans for maintaining and strengthening their quality in the future, for the following reasons: Sufficient human resources are not currently in place to carry out critical functions of instruction, assessment, advising, and tutoring; Resources have not been reallocated to mission-critical areas of student learning and improvement of retention and completion goals; It is unclear whether contracts for adjunct faculty will include specific references to or expectations for participation in academic duties other than course instruction, including advising, tutoring, or participating in academic assessment activities or curricular planning and development, even though a large number of College faculty are adjunct; Systematic coordination of the advising and tutoring functions is not evident; and There is no systematic, organized program of academic assessment. The College is out of compliance with Criterion Five, Core Component 5.D, the institution works systematically to improve its performance, for the following reasons: There was a lack of evidence that analysis of operations is linked in any systematic way to specific, identifiable institutional operations that might be improved as a result;
President Tafaro, July 17, 2017 5 Academic activities are largely evaluated using survey data provided by students instead of direct assessment data collected from courses or assessment products from external vendors; An assessment and evaluation program that is currently systematic, integrated, and functioning was absent; and The utilization of data to make improvements was not evident. The College meets Criterion Two, Core Component 2.A, the institution operates with integrity in its financial, academic, personnel, and auxiliary functions; it establishes and follows policies and processes for fair and ethical behavior on the part of its governing board, administration, faculty, and staff, but with concerns because even though the College has prepared a plan to address the independent contractor status of adjuncts, this change has not yet been implemented. Further, the institutional representatives were unable to provide details specific to the revised roles and responsibilities of these previously classified contract faculty as they transition to adjunct faculty status. The College meets Criterion Three, Core Component 3.D, the institution provides support for student learning and effective teaching, but with concerns because the academic infrastructure to support the needs of students is not centralized, coordinated, or systematic. Specifically, tutors are unpaid volunteers and tutoring is not available for all subjects and at critical times. In addition, department chairs advise on average 37 students in addition to carrying a full teaching load. The College meets Criterion Five, Core Component 5.C, the institution engages in systematic and integrated planning, but with concerns because the strategic plan uses grade data to measure achievement of student learning. The College has demonstrated that it is not in compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation, Assumed Practices, and Federal Compliance requirements and should therefore be placed on Probation. The Board action resulted in changes to the affiliation of the College. These changes are reflected on the Institutional Status and Requirements Report. Some of the information on that document, such as the dates of the last and next comprehensive evaluation visits, will be posted to the HLC website. At this time, the Commission will reassign the College from its liaison Dr. Barbara Johnson to Dr. Anthea Sweeney. Please be assured that Dr. Johnson will work with Dr. Sweeney to ensure a smooth transition. Information about the sanction is provided to members of the public and to other constituents in several ways. Commission Policy INST.G.10.010, Management of Commission Information, anticipates that the Commission will release action letters related to the imposition of a sanction to members of the public. The Commission will do so by posting this action letter on the Commission website along with the Statement of Affiliation Status and Organizational Profile.
President Tafaro, July 17, 2017 6 Also, the enclosed Public Disclosure Notice will be posted to the Commission s website not more than 24 hours after you receive this letter. Commission policy INST.E.10.020, Probation, subsection Disclosure of Probation Actions, requires that an institution inform its constituencies, including Board members, administrators, faculty, staff, students, prospective students, and any other constituencies about the sanction and how to contact the Commission for further information. The policy also requires that an institution on Probation disclose this status whenever it refers to its Commission accreditation. The Commission will monitor these disclosures to ensure they are accurate and in keeping with Commission policy. I ask that you copy Dr. Sweeney on emails or other communications with campus constituents regarding the sanction as required and provide her with a link to information on your website and samples of related disclosures. In addition, Commission policy COMM.A.10.010, Commission Public Notices and Statements, requires that the Commission prepare a summary of actions to be sent to appropriate state and federal agencies and accrediting associations, and published on its website. The summary will include the Commission Board action regarding the College. The Commission will also simultaneously inform the U.S. Department of Education of the sanction by copy of this letter. On behalf of the Board of Trustees, I thank you and your associates for your cooperation. If you have questions about any of the information in this letter, please contact Dr. Sweeney. Sincerely, Barbara Gellman-Danley President Enclosure: Public Disclosure Notice cc: Chair of the Board of Trustees, Chatfield College Cheryl Kern, Interim Coordinator of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment, Chatfield College Evaluation team chair Institutional Actions Council Hearing Committee chair Stephanie McCann, Associate Vice Chancellor, Program Development and Approval, Ohio Department of Higher Education Barbara Johnson, Vice President for Accreditation Relations, Higher Learning Commission Anthea Sweeney, Vice President for Accreditation Relations, Higher Learning Commission Karen Peterson Solinski, Executive Vice President for Legal and Governmental Affairs, Higher Learning Commission Herman Bounds, Accreditation and State Liaison, Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education