UW-Platteville Vision UW-Platteville will be recognized as the leading student-focused university for its success in achieving excellence, creating opportunities, and empowering each individual.

UW-Platteville Mission The University of Wisconsin-Platteville provides associate, baccalaureate, and master’s degree programs in a broad spectrum of disciplines including: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; criminal justice; education; business; agriculture; and the liberal arts.

UW-Platteville Mission We promote excellence by using a personal, hands-on approach to empower each student to become broader in perspective, intellectually more astute, ethically more responsible, and to contribute wisely as an accomplished professional and knowledgeable citizen in a diverse global community.

Why are we here today? Review the accreditation process  What is accreditation?  What’s our timeline? Provide an update on institutional progress  Quality Initiative  Quality Assurance argument Inform you about important issues  What’s next?  How you can help

What is institutional accreditation? A multi-faceted, comprehensive, peer evaluation of institutional effectiveness  Higher Learning Commission (HLC) evaluates:  Assumed practices  Criteria for accreditation  Compliance with federal requirements and regulations A requirement  For student access to financial aid  For campus access to federal, state and private grant funding

What is institutional accreditation? A process  Review for quality assurance and compliance  Comprehensive written argument addressing criteria for accreditation  Multi-day site visit and meetings with campus constituencies An opportunity  For institutional self-reflection  To identify areas for continued improvement  To recognize how we have improved since our last review

Criteria for Accreditation 1. Mission 2. Ethical and Responsible Conduct 3. Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources and Support 4. Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement 5. Resources, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness

Timelines We’re here now Date of our site visit: October 24-25, 2016 Complete review again in 4 years We started here

Comprehensive Evaluation Team Dr. Roberta Teahen  Associate Provost for Accreditation, Assessment, Compliance and Evaluation, Ferris State University Dr. Christine Austin  Associate Professor, Arkansas Tech University Dr. Eri Fujieda  Director of Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research, Winona State University Dr. Kathryn Zuckweiler  Associate Dean of Graduate Studies, University of Nebraska at Kearney Dr. Ronna Vanderslice  VP for Academic Affairs, Cameron University

During the campus visit: Meet with key personnel on campus:  Chancellor, Senior Team  HLC Steering Committee (including assistant/associate deans, financial services, student affairs, graduate school, academic affairs, OIEA)  Federal Compliance Team (Registrar, Dean of Students, DLC, police chief, Admissions, OIEA, Student Services)  Open sessions for faculty, staff, students  Open sessions for each criterion  May request representatives from specific governance groups or other constituencies on campus

Progress Report Quality Initiative – completed and accepted. Criterion Teams – continuing to improve our evidence files. Federal Compliance Team – compiling data to document that we follow government regulations.

Progress Report Quality Assurance argument  35,000 word document addressing: 35,000 word document  Five criteria 21 sub-criteria 69 sub-components  Criterion teams have completed and revised three drafts showing that we meet these criteria.

Progress Report Quality Assurance argument  Current draft of complete argument will be released to campus and community for comments and feedback in April.  Each criterion should be understandable on its own and to an outside reader.

Progress Report Quality Assurance argument  Steering Committee would like suggestions for improvement to content (final polish will occur this summer by our editorial team).  100+ page document - focus on criteria or sub- component that you know a lot about.  Are there strengths or concerns missing from our argument?  Is there additional or better evidence (documents, reports) that should be included?

Areas for Institutional Attention Federal Compliance  Student complaints  New policy and processes of logging, tracking and responding to student complaints  State authorizations for out-of-state activities  SARA participation is only for distance education  Third party comment Third party comment  In process and being communicated to external constituencies

Continuous improvement  How do we use data to improve student learning? Areas for Institutional Attention

How can you help? Live our vision and mission Our mission is central to how we will be evaluated. Read the Quality Assurance Argument Draft Provide suggestions for improvement. Encourage students to participate in the Student Opinion Survey from April 11 – 20.

How can you help? Celebrate and continue what we’re doing well. Recognize what needs improvement  Continue to work on making improvements. Respond to requests for information and data Communicate  Policies and processes must be clearly documented.

Everyone on campus is a part of our re- affirmation of accreditation process

What questions do you have?