Accreditation in the Open Pathway January 28, 2016
Common Elements Criteria and Assumed Practices Obligations of Affiliation Policies Transparency of accreditation results Evaluations required ü Federal Compliance (third-party comment, credit hour) ü Review of distance delivery ü Multi-campus and -location visits (if applicable)
Common Elements Financial indicators are reviewed annually Non-financial indicators are reviewed annually Substantive Change requirements and processes are followed regardless of pathway ü Required applications ü Desk, panel, or visit reviews
Common Elements to All Pathways Self-Analysis Evaluation Decision Process Institution participates in pathway Activities specific to pathway Peer Review specific to each Pathway Evaluation recommendations Institutional response Institutional Actions Council Evaluate report & take action Inform institution
Open Pathway: 10-year Cycle
Eligible Institutions Accredited for at least 10 years No recent Change of Control No recent Commission sanction No extensive past or future monitoring No significant Commission concerns in areas such as leadership, student body, or review by governmental agency
Logistics: Preparing for a Review hlcommission.org/pathways/assurance-systemtraining.html
Assurance Review Online electronic review of the Assurance Filing conducted via Assurance System ü Examines Evidence File and Assurance Argument ü Any other required materials Forms basis of other reviews Occurs in Year 4 and with all comprehensive reviews (Year 10) in Open Pathway reaffirmation of accreditation
The Assurance System Web-based system Secure access for 15 institutional representatives; peer reviewers; HLC staff Maintained over entire timeline of HLC affiliation No additional technology needed Institution makes the case that it meets the Criteria for Accreditation using the system
Preparing for a Review
Word Limit = 35,000 total
Assurance Filing: Summary Assurance Argument Write or Update Evidence File Accumulate and Update Evidence Add-On Forms Supplement to review Federal Compliance Report: filed once in the Open Pathway Cycle for Year 10 Comprehensive Reviews Only Other material may also be reviewed: (e.g., embedded changes, multi-campus visits)
Open Pathway Assurance Process Electronic Assurance Review (visit optional) in Year 4. Report identifies issues proactively Year 4 reviewers may interact with institution via technology or require a visit The separate Quality Initiative provides the improvement focus
Open Pathway Assurance Process Comprehensive Evaluation (with visit) in Year 10 Year 4 and 10 reviews require 3, 5, or 7 reviewers (or more due to complex circumstances) Teams or IAC may require interim reports but the institution would be reassigned to the Standard Pathway if a focused visit was required
Writing to the Criteria Criterion introduction An articulation of how each Core Component within each Criterion is met Explicit statements as to how previously identified concerns have been addressed Embedded links take reader to evidence in materials in Evidence File A Criterion Summary
Criteria for Accreditation
Elements of a Criterion Criteria Broad statements Must be explicitly addressed Core Components Specific areas of focus, define criterion Must be explicitly addressed Sub-components Not comprehensive Must be explicitly addressed, as applicable
Criterion 1 Mission The institution s mission is clear and articulated publicly; it guides the institution's operations.
Criterion 1 Core Components 1.A. The institution s mission is broadly understood within the institution and guides its operations. 1.B. The mission is articulated publicly. 1.C. The institution understands the relationship between its mission and the diversity of society. 1.D. The institution s mission demonstrates commitment to the public good.
Criterion 2 Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct The institution acts with integrity; its conduct is ethical and responsible.
Criterion 2 Core Components 2.A. The institution operates with integrity in its financial, academic, personnel, and auxiliary functions; it establishes and follows fair and ethical policies and processes on the part of its governing board, administration, faculty, and staff. 2.B. The institution presents itself clearly and completely to its students and to the public with regard to its programs, requirements, faculty and staff, costs to students, control, and accreditation relationships.
Criterion 2 Core Components 2.C. The governing board of the institution is sufficiently autonomous to make decisions in the best interest of the institution and to assure its integrity. 2.D. The institution is committed to freedom of expression and the pursuit of truth in teaching and learning. 2.E. The institution s policies and procedures call for responsible acquisition, discovery and application of knowledge by its faculty, students and staff.
Criterion 3 Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources, and Support The institution provides high quality education, wherever and however its offerings are delivered.
Criterion 3 Core Components 3.A. The institution s degree programs are appropriate to higher education. 3.B. The institution demonstrates that the exercise of intellectual inquiry and acquisition, application, and integration of broad learning and skills are integral to its educational programs.
Criterion 3 Core Components 3.C. The institution has the faculty and staff needed for effective, high-quality programs and student services. 3.D. The institution provides support for student learning and effective teaching. 3.E. The institution fulfills the claims it makes for an enriched educational environment.
Criterion 4 Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs, learning environments, and support services, and it evaluates their learning through processes designed to promote continuous improvement.
Criterion 4 Core Components 4.A. The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs. 4.B. The institution demonstrates a commitment to educational achievement and improvement through ongoing assessment of student learning. 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.
Criterion 5 Resources, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness The institution s resources, structures, and processes are sufficient to fulfill its mission, improve the quality of its educational offerings, and respond to future challenges and opportunities. The institution plans for the future.
Criterion 5 Core Components 5.A. The institution s resource base supports its current educational programs and its plans for maintaining and strengthening their quality in the future. 5.B. The institution s governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership and support collaborative processes that enable the institution to fulfill its mission.
Criterion 5 Core Components 5.C. The institution engages in systematic and integrated planning. 5.D. The institution works systematically to improve its performance.
How do Guiding Values and Assumed Practices Come into Play? Guiding Values HLC expects the governing board to ensure quality through its governance structures, with appropriate degrees of involvement and delegation.
How do Guiding Values and Assumed Practices Come into Play? Guiding Values Governance for the well-being of the institution: The well-being of an institution requires that its governing board place that well-being above the interests of its own members and the interests of any other entity.
How do Guiding Values and Assumed Practices Come into Play? Guiding Values Governance of a quality institution of higher education will include a significant role for faculty, in particular with regard to currency and sufficiency of the curriculum, expectations for student performance, qualifications of the instructional staff, and adequacy of resources for instructional support.
How do Guiding Values and Assumed Practices Come into Play? Assumed Practices Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct The governing board has the authority to approve the annual budget and to engage and dismiss the chief executive officer.
Quality Initiative Identified by institution to suit its needs Has appropriate scope, significance, clear outcomes, evidence of commitment and capacity, realistic timeline Conducted between Years 5 and 9
Most Common Topics Assessment Student Success projects (advising; mentorship; eportfolios) Developing a Quality Culture across Campus Academic Unit or Program Review Online and Mobile Learning Platforms Faculty Professional Development Organizational improvement Strategic Planning New Curriculum Design
Goals and Ambitions Demonstrate that institutions regularly pursue projects to improve student outcomes; faculty performance; campus utilization and facilities effectiveness; operations; usage of resources. Make these projects visible and recognized as part of the accreditation process. Provide a record of evidence that institutions of higher education regularly pursue independent projects designed to improve quality.
Quality Initiative Quality Initiative Proposal Peer Review Institution Conducts the Initiative Quality Initiative Report Peer Review Institutions determine initiative & write proposal Peer reviewers review proposal Institutions complete initiative & write report Peer reviewers confirm genuine effort & offer feedback if requested
Comprehensive Evaluation: Review Reviewers examine several components, including ü Assurance Review / Evidence File ü Federal Compliance Review ü Other components if required (multi-campus, embedded change requests) Occurs in Yr. 10: for the Open Pathway only (Year 4 is the Assurance Filing only) May require interim monitoring The Quality Initiative is not reviewed by the Comprehensive Evaluation Team
Comprehensive Evaluation: Visit Team visit in Year 10: 1½-day onsite visit with fixed agenda Team sizes of 3, 5 or 7 (may need more due to complex circumstances) Report leads to a reaffirmation of accreditation decision and Pathway determination at Year 10 (for some institutions at Year 4) Student Satisfaction Survey (new)
Open Pathway: Outcome Results of the Assurance Process and the Quality Initiative remain separate, but are brought together in HLC s Decision Process in Year 10.
Due Process and Decision Institution identifies and corrects errors-of-fact in the draft team report Institution receives final team report Institution has opportunity to provide a formal response to be considered by IAC IAC reads the full record and takes action unless policy requires the Board of Trustees to review the case
Reaffirmation Reaffirmation of Accreditation is the culminating action of the Comprehensive Evaluation for an institution s continued accreditation Peer review teams now recommend and IAC will act on a Pathway Determination (eligible to choose any Pathway or limited to Standard)
Open Pathway Greater Value to Institutions ACCREDITATION Greater Credibility to the Public
Questions? Linnea A. Stenson, Ph.D. Vice President for Accreditation Relations and Director, AQIP Pathway lstenson@hlcommission.org