UW-Platteville Vision
UW-Platteville will be recognized as the
leading student-focused university for its
success in achieving excellence,
creating opportunities, and empowering
each individual.
UW-Platteville Mission
The University of Wisconsin-Platteville provides
associate, baccalaureate, and master’s degree
programs in a broad spectrum of disciplines
including: science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics; criminal justice; education; business;
agriculture; and the liberal arts.
UW-Platteville Mission
We promote excellence by using a personal,
hands-on approach to empower each student to
become broader in perspective, intellectually
more astute, ethically more responsible, and to
contribute wisely as an accomplished
professional and knowledgeable citizen in a
diverse global community.
Why are we here today?
 Review the accreditation process
 What is accreditation?
 What’s our timeline?
 Provide an update on institutional progress
 Quality Initiative
 Quality Assurance argument
 Inform you about important issues
 What’s next?
 How you can help
What is institutional accreditation?
 A multi-faceted, comprehensive, peer
evaluation of institutional effectiveness

Higher Learning Commission (HLC) evaluates:
Assumed practices
 Criteria for accreditation
 Compliance with federal requirements and regulations

 A requirement


For student access to financial aid
For campus access to federal, state and private
grant funding
What is institutional accreditation?
 A process

Review for quality assurance and compliance
Comprehensive written argument addressing criteria
for accreditation
 Multi-day site visit and meetings with campus
constituencies

 An opportunity



For institutional self-reflection
To identify areas for continued improvement
To recognize how we have improved since our
last review
Criteria for Accreditation
1. Mission
2. Ethical and Responsible Conduct
3. Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources
and Support
4. Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and
Improvement
5. Resources, Planning and Institutional
Effectiveness
Timelines
Date of our site visit: October 24-25, 2016
We started here
We’re here now
Complete review
again in 4 years
Comprehensive Evaluation Team
 Dr. Roberta Teahen

Associate Provost for Accreditation, Assessment, Compliance
and Evaluation, Ferris State University
 Dr. Christine Austin

Associate Professor, Arkansas Tech University
 Dr. Eri Fujieda

Director of Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research,
Winona State University
 Dr. Kathryn Zuckweiler

Associate Dean of Graduate Studies, University of Nebraska at
Kearney
 Dr. Ronna Vanderslice

VP for Academic Affairs, Cameron University
During the campus visit:
 Meet with key personnel on campus:
 Chancellor, Senior Team
 HLC Steering Committee (including assistant/associate
deans, financial services, student affairs, graduate school,
academic affairs, OIEA)
 Federal Compliance Team (Registrar, Dean of Students,
DLC, police chief, Admissions, OIEA, Student Services)
 Open sessions for faculty, staff, students
 Open sessions for each criterion
 May request representatives from specific governance
groups or other constituencies on campus
Progress Report
 Quality Initiative – completed and accepted.
 Criterion Teams – continuing to improve our
evidence files.
 Federal Compliance Team – compiling data
to document that we follow government
regulations.
Progress Report
 Quality Assurance argument
 35,000 word document addressing:


Five criteria
 21 sub-criteria
• 69 sub-components
Criterion teams have completed and revised three
drafts showing that we meet these criteria.
Progress Report
 Quality Assurance argument
 Current draft of complete argument will be
released to campus and community for comments
and feedback in April.

Each criterion should be understandable on its
own and to an outside reader.
Progress Report
 Quality Assurance argument
 Steering Committee would like suggestions for
improvement to content (final polish will occur this
summer by our editorial team).
100+ page document - focus on criteria or subcomponent that you know a lot about.
 Are there strengths or concerns missing from our
argument?
 Is there additional or better evidence (documents,
reports) that should be included?

Areas for Institutional Attention
 Federal Compliance
 Student complaints


State authorizations for out-of-state activities


New policy and processes of logging, tracking and
responding to student complaints
SARA participation is only for distance education
Third party comment

In process and being communicated to external
constituencies
Areas for Institutional Attention
 Continuous improvement
 How do we use data to improve student learning?
How can you help?
 Live our vision and mission
 Our mission is central to how we will be evaluated.
 Read the Quality Assurance Argument Draft
 Provide suggestions for improvement.
 Encourage students to participate in the
Student Opinion Survey from April 11 – 20.
How can you help?
 Celebrate and continue what we’re doing well.
 Recognize what needs improvement

Continue to work on making improvements.
 Respond to requests for information and data
 Communicate

Policies and processes must be clearly documented.
Everyone on campus is a part of our reaffirmation of accreditation process
What questions do you have?