Pathways 2017: HLC Accreditation Overview Presented by: Maria Cuzzo & Jenice Meyer 2016

What is accreditation? Verifying that our institution meets standards established by peers (Peer review) “License” to operate Thoughtful self-study of our strengths, areas for improvement and best practices Providing assurance to the public and public officials about quality We’ve done this every 10 years in the past; now we are moving toward Standard pathways, a more regular and frequent HLC review process Thank everyone for being part of this important process---our first Standard Pathways review!

The Standard Pathways Cycle Difference between the Monitoring Report and the Assurance Argument Evaluations are done TWICE per decade: Year 4 and Year 10 Both quality assurance and quality improvement are integrated into comprehensive evaluations Most frequently chosen Pathway by HLC institutions Monitoring Report: Follow-up to our last accreditation visit in 2013; 2017 assurance argument and site visit is part of the new standard pathways process Standards Pathways (handout): There are three variations of accreditation processes that institutions can select. Our institution selected the Standard Pathways 10-year cycle As part of this cycle, we have committed to submitting an assurance argument in year 4 and in year 10 On-going Process: both quality assurance and quality improvement are integrated into comprehensive evaluations; more regularized review process (not “once a decade event”) Most frequently selected cycle by HLC institutions

“Criteria vs. Standards” A culture of aspiration and continuous improvement rather than satisfaction of minimal standards Acknowledgment of great diversity of HLC member institutions

Elements of Accreditation Guiding values: understandings and intentions underlying criteria Obligations of affiliation: the meaning of being a “member” of HLC Criteria for accreditation: CENTRAL CORE Assumed practices: matters of fact vs. judgment; unlikely to vary by institution Federal Compliance: meeting federal law

End Goals Peer Reviewers can rate a campus on each criterion and criterion subcomponent with: Met without Concerns Met with Concerns Not Met We are rated on these three by each overall criterion and each subcomponent of each criterion Met without concerns Means an institution meets or exceeds the expectations embodied in the component or criterion—this is what we are striving for each subcomponent and each criterion Met with Concerns: Means the institution demonstrates the characteristics expected, but performance needs to be improved. In our last monitoring report we had two subcomponents that were met with concerns. Typically, this will result in an institution being required to submit a monitoring report. Not Met: Means the institution fails to meet the component or criterion entirely or is very deficient in 1 or more aspects of a the subcomponents and it is judged to not be met.

Federal Compliance Federal Compliance process varies from criterion teams Team began work in July of 2015 Will submit their packet in October of 2016 Areas include: Institutional Records of Student Complaints, Publication of Transfer Policies, and Campus Crime Information, Athletic Participation and Financial Aid, and Related Disclosures. Each Team will be responsible for assuring, to the best of their ability, our peer reviewers that we are meeting each of the criterion areas and their subcomponents This team already began this work in July of 2015. We have reviewed all of the required areas and are feeling confident that in all but one area we are meeting the requirements. The one area that a small sub-group has been working on is our student complaint process. We are enhancing our current practices to ensure the institution is meeting students needs as well as meeting the standard set by HLC. We are anticipating sharing an update to the entire campus during opening week. The work of this group will be completed in October as this packet needs to be submitted 6 months before our actual site visit. Right now, our team is waiting for the new or modified version that will be published by the HLC in January of 2016.

Criterion One Mission The institution’s mission is clear and articulated publicly; it guides the institution’s operations. HANDOUT Team please raise their hand to identify themselves A few areas this team will be working to address within this criterion includes: Everyone on campus understands the mission The mission is articulated publically AND Showing how the mission demonstrates a commitment to the public good Did well on this in our 2013 HLC visit; everything was ‘met’: The institution has embraced its liberal arts mission and has taken positive steps to effectively communicate the mission to its students and the surrounding community.

Criterion Two Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct The institution acts with integrity; its conduct is ethical and responsible. A few areas our peer reviewers will be looking to ensure we meet this criteria are: Providing evidence that we operate with integrity with our financial, academic, personnel, and auxiliary functions. Also relates to our Board of Directors and how they make decisions for our campus In our 2013 site visit this area was ‘met’ with no concerns: A preponderance of evidence suggests that UW-S has met this criterion.

Criterion Three Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources & Support The institution provides high quality education, wherever and however its offerings are delivered.

Criterion Four 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 effectiveness for student learning through processes designed to promote continuous improvement.

Criterion Five 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. In our 2013 site visit, criterion 5D was an area met with concerns and is addressed within our monitoring report due at the end of this month Our peer reviewers noted in our last site visit report that The preponderance of evidence suggests that UW-S is meeting this criterion. The team, however, has some concerns.  Summary of Reviewers Comments: While it is true that planning is occurring on campus, planning activities are often done at the unit level with little meaningful connection between the activities. It was not clear, in either conversations or in documents such as the Strategic Priorities, that budgetary allocations are connected to a Strategic Plan or that decisions are made based on data. Our new integrated planning and budgeting process has been created to address this concern and is addressed within our monitoring report. This process is establishing a way the institution’s budget aligns with our strategic priorities and that as a campus we are making decisions based on data.

Timeline of our Pathways 2017 HLC Process SO HOW are we going to accomplish all of this? HANDOUT What we have accomplished

What’s next? Teams are working Over spring, evidence will be gathered Your insights might be needed Report deadline is March 2017 Site visit is April 2017 Individualized Team Trainings—SLIDE Want to help set you up for success AND make this process as painless as possible

This is a great adventure This is a great adventure! Walk the Pathway with us and our institution will be better for it! Thanks for your help!