HLC Open Pathways Process
Dev Venugopalan
UW-Milwaukee
December 2, 2011
1
Overview of Open Pathways
Process
• Bifurcation of institutional review
– Assurance Process
• Evidence File and Assurance Argument
– Improvement Process
• Quality Initiative
• Available to institutions with a history of
meeting the threshold standards for
accreditation
• More emphasis on improvement process
2
Assurance Process
• Two assurance reviews
– 4th year and 10th year of cycle
• Two items reviewed:
– Evidence file
– Assurance argument
• 4th year review done online
• 10th year review includes campus visit
3
Evidence File
• Commission section
– HLC inputs documents from previous review,
interim reports, data from AIDU, public
comments, etc
• Institutional section
– Evidentiary materials to show how the elements
of criteria are met
– Uploaded into the electronic “portfolio” template
on HLC website
4
Evidence File - Institutional
• Commercial vendor application (CampusLabs)
• Access limited to a few individuals from the
institution
• Each item must be explicitly referenced in the
assurance argument and linked to at least one
criterion element
– OK to just provide links to certain information
stored on campus server (e.g. course catalogs,
class schedules, faculty bios)
5
Assurance Argument
• 35,000 word limit
• Organized by Criteria and Core Components
• Articulation of how each Core Component is
met
• For each statement provide links to materials
in Evidence File
• Analysis of gaps and future plans
6
4th Year Assurance Review
• Review of electronic files at a distance
• Asynchronous review over a period of time
• Visit only in exceptional cases when there is
uncertainty about evidence that requires a
visit
• No reaffirmation decision in the 4th year
• Clears institution to proceed with its Quality
Initiative
7
10th Year Assurance Review
• Review of electronic files and a visit
• Assurance review combined with review of
Quality Initiative
• Triggers the Decision process on reaffirmation
of accreditation
8
The Improvement Process
• Occurs between Years 4 and 10 in cycle
• Institution takes on a Quality Initiative
– Take risks, aim high
– Learn from successes and failures
• Quality Initiative review in 9th year of cycle
9
Quality Initiative
• Institution designed major initiative
• Institution chooses from a menu of topics, e.g.
– Broad self-evaluation leading to revision of
mission, vision, and goals
– Systemic, comprehensive assessment and
improvement of learning
– Partnership with a community college
• HLC facilitated program (Academy for
Assessment, AQIP)
10
Quality Initiative Proposal
• Submitted in the year following the 4th year
review
• Proposal is peer reviewed on the following
– sufficiency of scope and significance;
– clarity of outcomes;
– evidence of commitment and capacity; and
– a realistic timeline.
• Paper review or QI Forum
11
Quality Initiative
• Upon approval of QI by HLC, the institution
works on the initiative
– Multi-year project
– May be a longer initiative with key milestones to
be completed by 9th year
• UWM QI: “Renewing our Commitment to
Undergraduate Education”
– General education reform, and systemic and
comprehensive assessment and improvement of
student learning
12
QI Report and Review
• Report submitted in Year 9
• Peer review at a distance on
– the seriousness of the undertaking,
– the significance of scope and impact of the work,
– the genuineness of commitment to and sustained
engagement in the initiative,
– and adequate resource provision.
• Campus visit on QI?
13
Reaffirmation Decision
• QI review report combined with assurance
review report
• Recommendations of both teams reviewed by
HLC staff who write a summary
• Final decision on reaffirmation, follow-up
requirements, or sanctions
– Continued participation in the Open Pathways for
the next cycle is one of the decisions
14