Higher Learning Commission
of the
North Central Association
of Colleges and Schools
Accreditation Site Visit
November 13-15, 2006
Accreditation 101
Definitions
• Federal law prohibits federal funds from going to
non-accredited institutions
• The North Central Association is one of six
regional accrediting bodies in the United States
recognized by the federal government
• The Higher Learning Commission is the body
inside the NCA charged with reviewing
institutions of higher education
Accreditation 101
Principles
• Accreditation is mission-driven
– Many different missions: community colleges, technical
schools, religious-affiliated institutions, research
universities, etc.
• Accreditation is increasingly outcome-based
– Does the institution achieve a set of common criteria all
institutions of higher education should address?
• Accreditation is increasingly evidence-based
– What are the outcomes the institution achieves?
Accreditation 101
Major Concerns of Accreditors
• Is there a clear mission and does it drive behavior?
• Does the institution deal with diversity
appropriately to its mission?
• Does the institution plan sufficiently?
• Does the institution have sufficient resources to
fulfill its mission and does it use those resources
appropriately?
• Does the institution assess itself adequately,
especially with regard to student learning?
• Is sufficient attention paid to general education?
Accreditation 101
Decennial Reaccreditation Visit
• Consultant-evaluators are faculty and staff at
member institutions, trained by the HLC
• Team of 3 or more C-Es reads self-study, visits
campus to confirm that institution is meeting
criteria (we have seven)
• Meets with people on and off campus, examines
documents and facilities, forms consensus
• Makes recommendations to HLC regarding
reaccreditation
• Offers suggestions for ‘institutional advancement’
Accreditation 101
Campus Roles
• Open forums: Faculty, students, staff
• Scheduled group meetings
– Team chair asks to meet with particular groups, e.g.:
• SAAC members
• Advisors in student success
• Particular group of students
• Scheduled individual meetings
– Team chair asks to meet with specific individuals, e.g.:
• President of faculty assembly
• Dean of the graduate school
• Director of housing
Relationship with the Higher Learning
Commission
• 1997 Visit: Campus response to areas of concern
– VCAA office strengthened
– Lower percentage of students taught by part-time
faculty (TTF % also lower)
– Plans in place to address thin staffing levels
– Faculty assembly strengthened
– Campus facilities expanded and improved
– Library improvements
Relationship with the Higher Learning
Commission
• Conclusions from 2002 Focused Visit
– Sound governance and administration of graduate
school
– Improved funding levels and allocation processes
• Overall funding still inadequate
– Satisfactory progress on assessment of student learning
• Expectation of more use of direct measures
• Expectation of implementation of general education
assessment
Criterion One: Mission and
Integrity
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.
Core Component 1A: Organization has a
clearly articulated mission
• 2002 Mission change
– Statewide service mandate
– Explicit inclusion of doctoral level programs
• New vision statement - SILO committee (2003)
– The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs will
provide unsurpassed, student-centered teaching and
learning, and outstanding research and creative work
that serve our community, state and nation, and result
in our recognition as the premier comprehensive
regional research university in the United States
Core Component 1C: Understanding of and
support for the mission pervades organization
• “I am supportive of UCCS’ mission, vision and
values”
– Faculty: 81% agreement
– Staff: 92% agreement
– Students: 53% agreement (less than 1% disagreement)
Core Component 1B: Organization
recognizes diversity of learners and other
constituencies
•
•
•
•
•
•
Public statements
Efforts to increase access
Academic programs
Efforts to promote inclusion
President’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Diversity
Current strategic planning effort (Kee Warner)
Criterion Two: Preparing for the
Future
The organization’s allocation of resources
and its processes for evaluating and
planning demonstrate its capacity to fulfill
its mission, improve the quality of its
education, and respond to future
challenges and opportunities.
Core Component 2A: Organization
realistically prepares for a future shaped by
multiple societal and economic trends
• Planning
–
–
–
–
–
TLE
Vision 2010
SILO
Inventing the Future
Not in self-study: New effort based on regents’ call for
strategic planning
Core Component 2B: Organization’s resource
base supports its educational programs and its
plans
•
•
•
•
•
2002 Focused Visit progress reported
Subsequent state funding cuts
Seven-Year Plan
Passage of Referendum C
Ongoing challenge
Criterion Three: Student Learning
and Effective Teaching
The organization provides evidence
of student learning and teaching
effectiveness that demonstrates it is
fulfilling its educational mission
Core Component 3B: Organization values
and supports effective teaching
• 86% of faculty: “Teaching in a classroom setting
is an important part of who I am professionally”
• Support for teaching
–
–
–
–
Weight given teaching in faculty evaluations
Recognitions and awards
Council on Teaching Excellence
Teaching and Learning Center
• Challenge: Less than ½ of sections taught by TTF;
role of NTTF; expectations of TTF
Core Component 3A: Organization’s goals
for student learning outcomes are effectively
assessed
• Program-level assessment process (SAAC)
• Baseline requirements
–
–
–
–
Student learning objectives
Direct and indirect measures of achievement
Collection and analysis of data
Use of results to improve the program
• 92% of faculty report an understanding of the
importance of assessing student learning
Core Component 3C: Organization
creates effective learning environments
• College efforts
• Other efforts
–
–
–
–
Campus Life
Student services
Freshman Seminar
Project Excel
• Challenge: retention below state expectations
Criterion Four: Acquisition,
Discovery, and Application of
Knowledge
The organization promotes a life of
learning by fostering and supporting
inquiry, creativity, practice, and
social responsibility in ways
consistent with its mission.
Core Component 4A: Organization
demonstrates that it values a life of learning
• Research initiative
• Student engagement through research (CSURF)
Core Component 4B: Organization
demonstrates that a breadth of knowledge and
skills and the exercise of intellectual inquiry
are integral to its educational programs
Core Component 4C: Organization assesses
the usefulness of its curricula
• May 2000 adoption of core goals for general
education
• Implementation of general education assessment
Criterion Five: Engagement and
Service
As called for by its mission, the
organization identifies its
constituencies and serves them in
ways both value.
Evidence of Engagement and Service
• AASCU: Stepping Forward as Stewards of Place
• Extended Studies
• New degree programs to address community need
–
–
–
–
Bachelor of Arts in Criminal Justice
Doctorate of Nursing Practice
PhD in Educational Leadership
Bachelor of Innovation
• EDC: UCCS a Colorado Springs economic anchor
• Community partnerships
• El Paso County support for Referendum C
What can you do?
• Go to website for more info:
– http://www.uccs.edu/~ncaport/welcome.htm
•
•
•
•
Read the conclusion to self-study
Look at the areas you know most about
Take a look at the criteria and core components
Be prepared to talk to reviewers Nov. 13 and 14
– Realistic about challenges
– Realistic about campus’ capacity to address them
What happens after the visit?
• Team presents preliminary findings and
recommendations to campus leadership Nov. 15
• We get a formal written draft report to comment
on in December; campus response is due in
January
• HLC takes actions after that:
– Reaccreditation with no follow-up (may be concerns)
– Institutional follow-up (written progress report)
– Commission follow-up (focused visit)
• May get recommendations for “advancement”
Review Team Members
• Dr. Samuel Rankin - Team Chair
– Professor and past president
– Chadron State College
• Dr. Joel Anderson
– Chancellor
– University of Arkansas at Little Rock
• Dr. Gregory Gagnon
– Associate Professor of Indian Studies
– University of North Dakota
Team Members (continued)
• Ms. Ingrid Gould
– Associate Provost
– University of Chicago
• Dr. Elizabeth Lenz
– Dean of Nursing
– Ohio State University
• Dr. David Meabon
– Director, John H. Russell Center for Educational
Leadership
– University of Toledo
Team Members (continued)
• Dr. Tom Seymour
– Professor of Management Information Systems
– Minot State University