HLC – Open Pathways (DRAFT 1-25-2012)
*Sandy Grunwald to serve as HLC Liaison for UW-L
 Starting summer 2012 – 25-50% position overseeing quality assurance
(accreditation/program review)
THE ASSURANCE PROCESS
Criteria for Accreditation (and their Core Components)
 For each Criterion (maximum limit of 35,000 words).
 an articulation of how each Core Component within each Criterion is met, that includes a
statement of future plans with regard to the Core Component, and addresses, if applicable,
circumstances that (1) highlight room for improvement, (2) support future advancement, or (3)
constrain advancement or threaten the institution’s ability to sustain the Core Component

if applicable, a statement regarding additional ways in which the institution fulfills the Criterion
that are not otherwise covered in the statement on the Core Components, including any gaps in
achievement and future plans with regard to the Criterion

links to materials in the institution’s Evidence File for each statement made
THE IMPROVEMENT PROCESS
 Major Quality Initiative* (to be determined SPRING 2012)
UW-L TIMELINE & DECISION POINTS - TEN YEAR OPEN PATHWAY
Timeline
2005-2006 (year 0)
2006-2007 (year 1)
2007-2008 (year 2)
2008-2009 (year 3)
2009-2010 (year 4)
2010-2011 (year 5)
Issue
On-campus visit
Comments and Questions
Self study filed 8 weeks in
advance. Campus consulting
in Spring ’04 -- 2004-2005
steering committees at work
Applicable to NEXT ten year
cycle (year 4 in ’19)
Assurance Argument Filed
(Assurance review – no visit)
Applicable to NEXT ten year
cycle (year 5 in ’20)
Quality Initiative Proposal
Filed
1
2011-2012 (year 6)
Jan/Feb 2012
Mid to late Feb
Compressed timeline for this
first cycle of Open Pathways
UW-L should choose/file a
Quality Initiative Proposal
Choose Quality Initiative
Start evidence file(s) for
Assurance.
Discuss options for a quality
initiative with governance
groups
Narrow to 3-4 initiatives
(perhaps allowing for vetting
of initiatives with HLC
attendees) OR
decide on an initiative in order
to complete the HLC team
with folks who will be
involved.
Comment: HLC informed of
new liaison.
March
HLC Conference (Chicago, IL
2012)
Friday, March 30
Sat., March 31
Sunday, April 1
Monday, April 2
Tues., April 3
April
May
Steering committee(s) created
Metrics for Quality Initiative
established and timeline
created
HLC indicates this is the year
institutions (including UW-L)
transition to Open Pathways
2012-2013 (year 7)
Comment: complete choice of
a team to attend HLC
conference
Possible HLC Conference
Attendees (have 6 rooms
reserved)
Sandy Grunwald
– Quality Assurance
Coordinator
Patrick Barlow
– Assessment Coordinator
Natalie Solverson
- IR Director
Bill Colclough
- CBA Dean - Admin
Fac Senate recommended
faculty member
-with experience with one or
more of the initiatives
?? campus staff member
-with experience with one or
more of the initiatives
ALL need to attend Open Pathway Workshop
8:00am - 4:45pm
SATURDAY March 31, 2012
Collect evidence for the
Quality Initiative and for
Assurance
2
2013-2014 (year 8)
2014-2015 (year 9)
(no later than then end of
year nine)
2015-2016 (year 10)
Quality Initiative Proposal
submitted for review and
approval by HLC peer
reviewers
Quality Initiative Report
submitted
Collect evidence for the
Quality Initiative and for
Assurance
Collect evidence for the
Quality Initiative and for
Assurance
Comprehensive Evaluation –
site visit
3
TABLE 1
POTENTIAL IDEAS^
Must be “in progress” and fit the
criteria
List generated by UW-L campus
community
Top three as identified by
Chancellor’s Cabinet
Inclusive Excellence
Scope and Significance of Project – HLC Criteria
(? = unclear how to articulate)
Relevant
and timely
given the
context of
our inst.?
Represen
ts a
“stretch
project”
for the
campus?
Aligns or
competes
with other
operational
or strategic
priorities?
Intended impact on
the institution
generally AND to
the academic core?
Alignment
with one or
more of the
HLC’s criteria
for
accreditation
?**
Comments?
Yes
Reflects
key
elements
of the
institution’
s mission,
vision and
strategic
priorities?
Yes
Yes
Aligns
General = inclusivity
Academic Core = ?
(link to excellence)
yes
Yes
?
Perhaps
Aligns
General =
commitment to
student success
Academic Core =
increased student
learning
General = ?
Academic Core =
increased content
learning in teacher
ed candidates
yes
Benefits? Dinged on diversity
in the past.
Campus buy-in is high –
crosses academic and student
affairs.
Outcome measures? There is
a dashboard under
development that includes:
retention rates; campus
climate survey.
Buy-in? Science, math and
writing.
http://www.uwlax.edu/inclusive-excellence/
Inclusive employs a dual focus in diversity
efforts, concentrating on both increasing
compositional diversity, and creating learning
environments in which students of all
backgrounds can thrive.
Barbara Stewart & Deb Hoskins
Murphy Learning Center
http://www.uwlax.edu/mlc/
The Murphy Learning Center is a place where
all UW-La-Crosse students can receive free
tutoring services in a variety of
courses. Maggie McHugh
STEP Program
http://www.uwlax.edu/faculty/kosiak/SOESTEP/
A collaborative program leading to licensure in
Early Adolescence-Adolescence. Teacher
candidates earn a bachelor’s degree in an
appropriate content major combined with
professional education coursework and
multiple field experiences. Jen Kosiak
?
?
Yes
Aligns
Outcome measures?
Yes
Buy-in? Academic Affairs –
multiple disciplines but does
not cross academic affairs and
student affairs.
Outcome measures?
(Longitudinal?)
4
TABLE 2
Scope and Significance of Project – HLC Criteria
(? = unclear how to articulate)
List generated by UW-L campus
community
Relevant
and
timely
given the
context
of our
institutio
n?
Reflects key
elements of
the
institution’s
mission,
vision and
strategic
priorities?
Represe
nts a
“stretch
project”
for the
campus
?
Aligns or
competes
with other
operational
or strategic
priorities?
Intended impact on
the institution
generally AND to
the academic core?
Alignment
with one or
more of the
HLC’s criteria
for
accreditation
?**
Comments?
Yes
Yes
?
aligns
Yes
Buy-in – cross campus
Outcome measure re: #s is
clear – other measures?
Yes
Yes
Not at
this
time
Aligns
General =
globalization
Academic Core =
globalization
General = access
Academic Core =
quality
Yes
?
yes
Aligns
yes
General = ?
Academic Core =
quality
General = ?
Academic Core =
quality
yes
?–
relevant
re
change in
format
?
Not at
this
time
minor
Too “late” in the GQA process
for it to be considered a
quality improvement project.
Buy-in – cross campus
Outcome measure would be
clear.
Buy-in – only academic affairs
Not really “new”
Outcome measure?
Buy-in – narrow – math and
English only.
Outcome measure is clear.
Not at
this
time
Aligns
General = ?
Academic Core =
quality
yes
The following initiatives were
reviewed by Chancellor’s cabinet
and were deemed to not fit the
criteria as closely as the options
shown above.
Internationalization
Partnerships, curricular transformation, study
tours
GQ&A
Increased tuition associated with increased
hiring and graduates
Academic Program Review
Involvement of college level review + external
review + dean + APR.
050 preparation for future courses
Moving to the option of the summer before
and potentially on-line
Gen Ed Assessment
Several year effort of assessing SLO’s with a
standard method for reporting.
yes
Aligns
yes
Buy-in = low – but across
academic units.
? outcome measure? –
compliance? Actual
outcomes?
5
List generated by UW-L
campus community
Relevant and
timely given
the context of
our institution?
Reflects key
elements of
the
institution’s
mission,
vision and
strategic
priorities?
Represe
nts a
“stretch
project”
for the
campus
?
Aligns or
competes
with other
operational
or strategic
priorities?
Intended impact on
the institution
generally AND to the
academic core?
Online Learning
Yes
Yes
?
?
?
yes
?
Yes – but not a
“new” issue
yes
yes
Practically
relevant… not
sure it is
philosophically
relevant
Yes – but not a
“new” issue
yes
yes
May
competes
with
undergraduat
e priorities
but aligns
with student
FTE goals.
? could
compete with
SCH
production
aligns
General &
Academic Core = access
for place bound
students more options
for traditional students
General = ?
Academic Core =
graduate school
options for our
students and raises the
profile of graduate
school for our
undergraduates
General = ?
Academic Core =
yes
?
aligns
Increased individual offerings and
programs/quality assurance
Graduate Studies
Efforts to increase the profile of
Graduate Studies at UW-L and graduate
student enrollment.
Workload
Review workload assignment with
an eye to reduce inequities.
Summer School Transition
Centralized funding, new
compensation plan, marketing/admin
switching to Cont Ed.
Fundraising
Effort to have the capital campaign
more closely align with Academic
Affairs initiatives.
Alignment
with one
or more
of the
HLC’s
criteria
for
accreditat
ion?**
Yes
Comments?
yes
Buy-in – only Academic Affairs
and only some departments.
Outcome measure would be
clear for enrollment – but for
profile?
yes
Buy-in – only Academic Affairs
Outcome measure?
General = ?
Academic Core = ?
yes
General = Funding key
priorities
Academic Core =
Scholarship money
yes
Buy-in – only Academic Affairs
Outcome measure?
Faculty satisfaction (no base
line measure currently)
SCH production
Buy-in – cross campus but
only a few individuals directly
involved. Outcome measure
($$) is clear.
Buy-in – academic affairs only.
Outcome measures re #s is
clear – quality harder to
judge.
6
List generated by UW-L
campus community
Relevant and
timely given
the context of
our institution?
Reflects key
elements of
the
institution’s
mission,
vision and
strategic
priorities?
Represe
nts a
“stretch
project”
for the
campus
?
Aligns or
competes
with other
operational
or strategic
priorities?
Intended impact on
the institution
generally AND to the
academic core?
Undergraduate Research
?
yes
Not at
this
time
Aligns
General = ?
Academic Core = high
impact practice
?
?
Yes
?
General = ?
Academic Core =
curriculum infusion
Increase participation in UG research
across disciplines
Sustainability
Efforts to increase campus awareness
and practice of methods that do not
deplete or permanently damage natural
resources
Alignment
with one
or more
of the
HLC’s
criteria
for
accreditat
ion?**
yes
?
Comments?
Despite Scott Cooper’s new
role – generally “too late” in
the process. Outcome
measure would be clear.
Buy-in – crosses
Outcome measures?
7
*Examples of Quality Initiatives





the institution undertakes a broad based self-evaluation and reflection leading to revision or restatement of its mission, vision, and
goals
the institution determines to focus on sustainability in its operations and throughout its curricula;
the institution joins with a group of peer institutions, which it identifies, to develop a benchmarking process for broad institutional
self-evaluation;
the institution undertakes a multi-year process to create systemic, comprehensive assessment and improvement of student
learning;
the institution pursues a strategic initiative to improve its financial position;
** Criteria for Accreditation (http://www.ncahlc.org/Information-for-Institutions/criteria-for-accreditation.html)
Criterion One: Mission and Integrity
Criterion Statement 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 The organization's mission documents are clear and articulate publicly the organization's commitments.
Core Component 1b In its mission documents, the organization recognizes the diversity of its learners, other constituencies, and the greater
society it serves.
Core Component 1c Understanding of and support for the mission pervade the organization.
Core Component 1d The organization’s governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership and support collaborative
processes that enable the organization to fulfill its mission.
Core Component 1e The organization upholds and protects its integrity.
Criterion Two: Preparing for the Future
Criterion Statement The organization’s allocation of resources and its processes for evaluation 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 The organization realistically prepares for a future shaped by multiple societal and economic trends.
Core Component 2b The organization’s resource base supports its educational programs and its plans for maintaining and strengthening
their quality in the future.
Core Component 2c The organization’s ongoing evaluation and assessment processes provide reliable evidence of institutional effectiveness
that clearly informs strategies for continuous improvement.
Core Component 2d All levels of planning align with the organization’s mission, thereby enhancing its capacity to fulfill that mission.
8
Criterion Three: Student Learning and Effective Teaching
Criterion Statement The organization provides evidence of student learning and teaching effectiveness that demonstrates it is fulfilling its
educational mission.
Core Component 3a The organization’s goals for student learning outcomes are clearly stated for each educational program and make
effective assessment possible.
Core Component 3b The organization values and supports effective teaching.
Core Component 3c The organization creates effective learning environments.
Core Component - 3d The organization’s learning resources support student learning and effective teaching.
Criterion Four: Acquisition, Discovery, and Application of Knowledge
Criterion Statement The organization promotes a life of learning for its faculty, administration, staff, and students by fostering and supporting
inquiry, creativity, practice, and social responsibility in ways consistent with its mission.
Core Component 4a The organization demonstrates, through the actions of its board, administrators, students, faculty, and staff, that it
values a life of learning.
Core Component 4b The organization demonstrates that acquisition of a breadth of knowledge and skills and the exercise of intellectual
inquiry are integral to its educational programs.
Core Component 4c The organization assesses the usefulness of its curricula to students who will live and work in a global, diverse, and
technological society.
Core Component 4d The organization provides support to ensure that faculty, students, and staff acquire, discover, and apply
knowledge responsibly.
Criterion Five: Engagement and Service
Criterion Statement As called for by its mission, the organization identifies its constituencies and serves them in ways both value.
Core Component 5a The organization learns from the constituencies it serves and analyzes its capacity to serve their needs and
expectations.
Core Component 5b The organization has the capacity and the commitment to engage with its identified constituencies and
communities.
Core Component 5c The organization demonstrates its responsiveness to those constituencies that depend on it for service.
Core Component 5d Internal and external constituencies value the services the organization provides.
BLM
9