Institutional Accreditation: An Overview HLC Accreditation Kick-Off March 24, 2006

n Welcoming Remarks and Introductions n Accreditation Overview and Terminology—Bege Bowers n Timeline —Sharon Stringer n Committees’ First Assignment—Jan Elias n Training, SC and Committee Chairs Kick-Off Agenda

ACCREDITATION OVERVIEW AND TERMINOLOGY

“What Is Accreditation?” n Conferred by an outside agency, accreditation is external certification of the quality and integrity of an educational program or institution. An External Validation of Quality

n Internal “critical self-analysis leading to improvement in quality”; one of the most, if not THE most important self- assessments an institution undertakes. “What Is Accreditation?” A Process of Self-Evaluation

1. “Specialized,” program- or discipline-specific, e.g., è ABET—Engineering, Engineering Technology è NCATE—Education è AACSB—Business è Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy—PT 2. Institutional Types of Accreditation

n YSU is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission, a division of the North Central Association— one of 6 regional accrediting organizations. YSU’s Institutional Accreditation

1000± institutions 50% public, 50% private 30% two-year; 3% for profit The Higher Learning Commission’s Nineteen-State Region

n Assess the quality and effectiveness of the institution n Make recommendations for improvement n Assist the institution in making improvements in operations and effectiveness Focus of Institutional Accreditation

Evaluates the “entire educational organization” in light of 1. The institution’s mission, and 2. The agency’s standards and criteria Bases of Evaluation

Assesses:  Student Learning  Educational Activities  Governance and Administration  Administrative and Student Services Basis of Evaluation, cont’d

Assesses:  Financial Stability  Institutional Resources (Faculty/Staff/Capital/Other)  Every Aspect of the Institution  Relationships with/among Internal and External Constituencies Bases of Evaluation, cont’d

Five Criteria Twenty-one Core Components (4 or 5 per criterion) Many Examples of Evidence Structure/Rubric of Evaluation

Five Criteria: “necessary attributes” of an organization accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (current criteria went into effect in 2005—we must meet all) Structure of Evaluation

1. Mission & Integrity The Five Criteria/Categories 2. Preparing for the Future 3. Student Learning & Effective Teaching 4. Acquisition, Discovery, & Application of Knowledge 5. Engagement & Service Future-oriented Learning-focused Connected Distinctive

For example, Criterion 1, “Mission & Integrity,” states “The organization operates with integrity to ensure the fulfillment of its mission through structures and processes that involve the board, administration, faculty, staff, and students.” Example of Criterion

Twenty-one Core Components (4 or 5 per criterion—statements about aspects of the criteria; we must address each) For example, under “Mission and Integrity”: “The organization’s mission documents are clear and articulate publicly the organization’s commitments.” Structure of Evaluation, cont’d

Examples of Evidence (selected, specific illustrations of how we meet a criterion and core component—the handbook provides some; we provide some) Example: The mission statement and strategic plan are available to the public through the university catalogs and on the web. Structure of Evaluation, cont’d

Five Criteria Twenty-one Core Components (4 or 5 per criterion) Many Examples of Evidence Summary, Structure of Evaluation

Steps in the Accreditation Process 1. Annual Reports to the HLC  Demographic  Financial  Programs  Scope of Activities

Steps in the Accreditation Process, cont’d 2. Multi-Year Self-Study Process (open, transparent, engages entire university, all constituencies)

Steps in the Accreditation Process, cont’d Self-Study in this sense = è a process of critical self- evaluation

Who’s involved in the self-study? Everyone, with specific roles for n Five criteria committees n Steering Committee n Self-study Coordinators

Five Criteria Committees n Each assesses whether YSU meets the assigned criterion and its core components n Submits a progress report and a final report based on a process Jan will describe

Steering Committee n Reps bring their committee’s questions/concerns to the Steering Committee n SC assists the coordinators and serves as a clearinghouse for committees’ questions and reports n SC helps set up “resource room” and plan for team visit

Steps in the Accreditation Process, cont’d 3. Extensive Self-Study Report (evaluative, self-critical)

Steps in the Accreditation Process, cont’d Self-Study in this sense = è a document (hard-copy/ electronic) showing how well we meet the 5 criteria and 21 core components— identifies our strengths, challenges, future steps

Steps in the Accreditation Process, cont’d 4. 3-Day Site Visit by 8-10 Consultant-Evaluators  Evaluative  Investigative (can question anyone)

Steps in the Accreditation Process, cont’d 5. Consultant-Evaluators’ Team Report  Assurance: Evaluation against the Five Criteria  Advancement: Recommendations for Improvement  Consultation

Steps in the Accreditation Process, cont’d 6. Commission Review/Action  Accredit for up to 10 years  Accredit, but require progress reports  Accredit, but require focused visits  Probation  Withdraw accreditation

Steps in the Accreditation Process, cont’d 6. Commission Review/Action  Accredit for up to 10 years  Accredit, but require progress reports  Accredit, but require focused visits  Probation  Withdraw accreditation

YSU’S ACCREDITATION TIMELINE

YSU Time Line Spring 2006 Orientation & Planning Fall 2006 Information Gathering & Analyses

Time Line, cont’d January 15-March 15, 2007 Synthesis & Reporting March 15-August 15, 2007 Integration & Dissemination

Time Line, cont’d August 15-December 15, 2007 Feedback, revision, & submission of self study Feb 18-20, 2008 HLC Team Visit

Time Line, cont’d Summer 2008 Team Report & Commission Action Fall 2008 Strategic Planning

PHASE 1 ORIENTATION & PLANNING Spring 2006

PHASE 1 TASKS Develop Questions Identify Resources Assign Responsibilities Report Progress

DEVELOPING QUESTIONS Address the core components Use “examples of evidence” as a springboard

Example – Criterion 4 Core component 4d –The organization provides support to ensure that faculty, students, and staff acquire, discover, and apply knowledge responsibly. Example of Evidence – The organization creates, disseminates, and enforces clear policies on practices involving intellectual property rights

Turn Examples into questions Example of Evidence The organization creates, disseminates, and enforces clear policies on practices involving intellectual property rights Sample Question What evidence is there that the University has created, disseminated, and enforced clear policies and practices involving intellectual property rights?

Examples of Evidence Not listed in brochure but are available in the Handbook of Accreditation (on-line at Will be provided on the Progress Report Form (available at the website) Do not all have to be used Committee may add questions in addition to those prompted by the examples

Developing Questions Avoid closed questions that can be answered only yes or no Use open-ended questions that –Elicit description of evidence –Elicit evaluation of strengths and challenges

Helpful question stems What evidence is there…. To what extent does YSU…. How well does …. How adequate are ….

IDENTIFYING RESOURCES People Documents

People Committees & Councils e.g., Senate Committees, Diversity Council, Assessment Council Organizational Units e.g., Student Life, Metro College, Maag Library

Documents Accreditation website at provides some suggestions & links Search YSU website Examples: Board of Trustees Policies Union Contracts Mission Statement Strategic Plan

ASSIGNING RESPONSIBILITIES Be specific (When everyone is responsible—no one is responsible) Take advantage of existing linkages (e.g., to committees and offices) Two individuals assigned to a task provides insurance

Delegating A criterion committee may delegate responsibility for addressing some questions to another group (e.g., Senate committee) IF that group agrees to accept the charge A criterion committee member should be assigned liaison responsibility

REPORTING PROGRESS Form provided electronically on website Core components and examples of evidence will be on the form Complete the other 3 columns Submit by May 5, 2006, electronically to and hard-copy to Office of Provost

To Do Now Submit schedule forms to committee chairs ASAP so that meetings can be arranged (forms were sent electronically and are also on the accreditation website) Review information available on the web at

Next Steps Fall 2006, gather and analyze the information to answer questions No rule against working in the summer if you want to get a head start!

HLC/NCA logos and slides 8 and 15 provided by the Higher Learning Commission. Acknowledgment