UT Higher Learning Commission
Accreditation and the Process
of Self Study
Grad Council March 23, 2010
MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of The University of Toledo is to improve the
human condition; to advance knowledge through excellence in
learning, discovery and engagement; and to serve as a diverse,
student-centered public metropolitan research university.
North Central Association and the HLC
The NCA was founded in 1895 as one of six regional institutional
accreditors in the United States.
The NCA has two commission members:
-The Higher Learning Commission (HLC)
-The Commission on Public Schools (K-12)
The HLC “accredits” by granting membership in the HLC and NCA to
degree-granting educational institutions in the North Central region
HLC is recognized by the US Department of Education and the Council
on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA).
From J. Taylor, HLC 10/2009
2
NCA and the HLC
The Organization
– Member Institutions - ±1,015
– Location - in 19 States
Decision-Making Processes and
Peer Reviewers Corps
– Board of Trustees - 15-21 Members
– Institutional Actions Council - 26 Members
– Accreditation Review Council – 170 Members
– Peer Reviewer Corps -© 1,200 Evaluators **Includes 4
UT faculty (Drs. Ning, Edwards, Meabon, Suter)
From J. Taylor, 10/09
3
What is accreditation?
Accreditation is external peer-review to assess quality
assurance and quality improvement.
The process uses the University’s own self-study and planning for
continued improvement.
Our self-study is evaluated by HLC peer-reviewers and the outcome
determines reaccreditation. Maximum possible is 10 years.
Two types of accreditation:
University wide evaluation: institutional accreditation
Specific programs: specialized accreditation
4
Accreditation History
The University of Toledo
Medical College of Ohio
1922 – Accreditation granted
1972 - Approval by OBOR
1977 – Accreditation continued
1980- Accreditation granted
1983 – Accreditation continued
1986 – Accreditation continued
1992 – Accreditation continued
1991 – Accreditation continued
2002 – Accreditation continued
2001- Accreditation continued
****Feb. 27-29, 2012 – UT Site Visit
5
Self Study Timeline
2009
Aug:
Oct:
Oct-Dec:
Criterion teams populated; teams begin meetings
Self Study Kick-off; visit by Dr. John Taylor, HLC
Teams work to identify evidence; Self study website
2010
Jan-Oct:
Nov:
Dec:
Teams continue to work; Self-Study writing team selected
Criterion teams submit first draft of their reports
Drafts revised; writing team begins Self Study draft
2011
Jan-Aug:
Sept:
Oct:
Nov:
Dec:
Finalize by iterative process of review/rewrite, campus review.
Prepare for Institutional Snapshot and 3rd Party comment
President/SL review/comment; campus review/comment
President, senior leadership and BOT approval
Final Self-Study revision, printing and 3rd party comments
Send final Self-Study Report to HLC Feb 27-29, 2012 6
An Effective Self-Study
• Evaluates the whole university - all undergraduate and
graduate programs
• Engages all constituencies
• Builds on processes in place or identifies processes to add
• Shows effective leadership and communication
• Presents Evidence of Fulfilling the Accreditation Criteria
• The findings of the self-study inform decision-making
and future institutional development
From J. Taylor 10/09
7
Previously Identified Challenges
The University of Toledo
2002 Site Visit
Medical College of Ohio
2001 Site Visit
• No institution-wide, HLC
• Strategic planning does not
approved Plan for the
drive decision making or have
Assessment of Student
measurable goals.
Academic Achievement.
• Scholarships are limited to the
– Previously noted in 1992;
School of Medicine.
focus visit in 2005 approved • Campus lacks a cohesive
plan for assessment.
institution-wide student
• Institutional planning process
recruitment plan.
does not clearly articulate and
connect UT’s evolving mission,
resource allocation, and
measures of institutional
effectiveness.
8
How
were
teams
selected?
How were team leaders and members selected?
Self study is university-wide evidence gathering and evaluation,
it is not college specific
Team members--chosen from among those with knowledge &
expertise in areas covered by Criteria and campus, rank,
undergrad/grad programs, faculty, staff, student, fac-admin & to
ensure gender/ethnic/racial presence.
Total 78: faculty, 37% & fac-admin, 28%
65% with faculty backgrounds and 39 GRAD faculty (G)
Size—hundreds with knowledge but to be most effective teams
were set at 12-15
9
Criterion One: Mission & Integrity
The organization operates with integrity to insure the fulfillment of
its mission through structures and processes that involve the board,
administration, faculty, staff, and students.
• Do our public documents clearly express our aims and commitments?
• Do they recognize diversity of learners, variety of our constituencies, and do
they do so with the depth and inclusiveness needed to further our mission?
• Does UT governance and administration further our mission by promoting
needed leadership and collaboration?
• Do all segments of UT perform in ways showing the grasp and endorsement
of UT’s mission needed for our advancement?
• Do all segments conduct work conscientiously so as to sustain the further
advancement of its mission?
10
Criterion One: Mission & Integrity
Dr. Charles Blatz, College A&S, Criterion One Team Leader
Dr. Penny Poplin Gosetti, MC Provost Office, Liaison
Criterion Team One:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Defne Apul (MC) G
Jeanne Brockmyer (MC) G
Walter Edinger (HSC) G
Barbara Floyd (MC) G
David Guip (MC)
Wayne Hoss (MC) G
Saleh Jabarin (MC) G
Kristen Kieth (MC)
Susan Palmer (BOT)
Carter Wilson (MC) G
Bryan Yamamoto (HSC) G
Student, Caitlin Kerr
11
Criterion Two
Preparing for the future
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.
a)
b)
c)
d)
Preparation for a future shaped by societal and economic trends
Resource support for maintaining and strengthening education
programs
Evaluation and assessment processes show effectiveness and
continuous improvement
Planning levels align with the mission and the capacity to fulfill the
mission.
12
Criterion Two
Preparing for the future
Mr. Bryan Pyles, Criterion Two Team Leader
Dr. Bin Ning, Director, Institutional Research, Liaison
Criterion Two Team:
Lorinda Bishop (MC)
Marcia Culling (MC)
Bill Fall (BOT)
Shandra Gore (HSC)
Johan Gottgens (MC) G
Brenda Grant (MC)
Tom Gutteridge (MC)
Dan Klett (MC)
Kevin Kucera (MC)
Brenda Lee (MC)
William Maltese (HSC) G
Bill McMillen (MC) G
Andrew Meszaros (HSC) G
Susan Pocotte (HSC) G
Ellen Pullins (MC) G
Student, Kystalyn Weaver
13
Criterion Three
Student Learning & Effective Teaching
The organization provides evidence of student learning
and teaching effectiveness that demonstrates it is fulfilling
its education mission.
• Outcomes based education-goes beyond assessment plans and looks at
how the results feedback to improve student learning and competencies
• Core curriculum
• Supportive environment
• Alignment of resources with educational mission
14
Criterion Three
Student Learning & Effective Teaching
Dr. Constance Shriner, Criterion Three Team Leader
Ms. Marcia King-Blandford, MC Provost Office, Liaison
Criterion Three Team:
Susan Batten (HSC) G
Carol Bennett-Clarke (HSC) G
Rob Bruno (MC)
Tamara Clark (MC)
Melanie Dusseau (MC)
Terribeth Gordon-Moore (MC)
Noela Haughton (MC) G
Terri Hayes (MC)
Anthony Koh (MC) G
Patsy Komuniecki (MC) G
Michele Martinez (MC)
Ron Opp (MC) G
Bruce Poling (MC)
Jeannine Rajan (HSC)
Barbara Schneider (MC) G
Student, Michael Duran
15
Criterion Four Acquisition, Discovery &
Application of Knowledge
The organization promotes a life of learning for the faculty,
administration, staff, and students by fostering and supporting
inquiry, creativity, practice, and social responsibility in ways
consistent with its mission.
a) Demonstrates it values a “Life of Learning”
b) Demonstrates the integral nature of knowledge and skill acquisition
and intellectual inquiry
c) Assesses the usefulness of curricula to students living and working in
a global, diverse, and technological
d) Supports responsible acquisition, discovery and application of
knowledge
16
Criterion Four: Acquisition, Discovery
& Application of Knowledge
Dr. Charlene Czerniak, Criterion Four Team Leader
Dr. Dorothea Sawicki, Professor, COM, and Co-Chair, HLC; Liaison
Criterion Four Team: • Sherry Andrews (HSC)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sonny Ariss (MC) G
Jiquan Chen (MC) G
John Greenfield (HSC) G
Renee Heberle (MC) G
Samir Hefzy (MC) G
Ruth Hottell (MC) G
Ken Kilbert (MC)
Barbara Kopp-Miller (HSC) G
Dan Kory (MC)
Tom Kvale (MC) G
Jolene Miller (HSC)
Holly Monsos (MC) G
Steve Peseckis (MC) G
Mary Jo Waldock (MC)
Student- TBD
17
Criterion Five: Engagement & Service
As called for by its mission, the organization identifies its
constituencies and serves them in ways both value.
a) Learns from constituencies and analyzes its capacity to serve them
b) Has the capacity and commitment to engage with identified
constituencies and communities
c) Demonstrates responsiveness to constituencies that depend on it
d) Services are of value to internal and external constituencies
18
Criterion Five: Engagement & Service
Dr. Mojisola Tiamiyu, Criterion Five Team Leader
Dr. Thomas Sharkey, COB, Co-Chair HLC; Liaison
Criterion Five Team:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Jim Ferris (MC) G
Charlene Gilbert (MC)
Pat Hogue (HSC) G
Morris Jenkins (MC) G
Lisa Kovach (MC) G
Barbara Miner (MC)
Sudershan Pasupuleti (MC)
Kelly Phillips (HSC) G
Brian Randolph (MC) G
Kathleen Salyers (MC) G
Sabrina Serratos (MC)
Tina Skeldon Wozniak (Community member)
Christine Smallman (MC)
Linda L. Smith (MC) G
Steve Weathers (MC)
Student, Brad Corlett
19
Special Emphasis: Goals
“A Newly-merged University Looks To Its Future”
• Identify untapped potentials that will propel the University to
its next level while examining the remaining barriers holding
the University to its former separate worlds.
• Discover additional ways to advance the merger through
strategic planning and deeper and broader systemic
integration.
• Lay a more solid foundation for UT to advance to the future.
20
Special Emphasis: Focus
“A Newly-merged University Looks To Its Future”
Merging Cultures - How to:
• Move toward a shared identity that embraces mission and strategic plan
• Translate cultures of a traditional research university and medical
campus into one stronger institution
Teaching and Learning Synergies - How to:
• Move into greater interdisciplinary teaching and learning that advances
UT’s commitment to excellence
• Create balance between quality undergraduate teaching and research
Economic Viability - How to:
• Balance responsibilities to the USO with our mission and vision
• Maximize intellectual capital as we streamline resources
• Foster entrepreneurial environment that translates into new ways of
teaching and learning
21
Outcomes of Site Visit
 Evidence criterion is met
 Evidence criterion met but needs institutional attention
 Evidence that criterion is met but requires institutional
attention and commission follow-up (Progress/Contingency
Reports /Focused visits)
 Criterion not met (even 1 of the 21 components)
22
What is my role in the self-study if I am not a team member?
•
Teams are responsible for gathering and assembling evidence to meet
the 5 criteria. They will need to go to you to get evidence of research,
teaching objectives and outcomes, service…
Please assist this effort if you are asked for information/documents.
•
If you have an idea that would help, please contact the team leaders!
Why is this important?
•
•
•
Institutional accreditation is important for all programs, especially those
that do not undergo individual program accreditation.
Accredited programs also need the university to have HLC
accreditation.
Individually program accreditation may not include accreditation of an
undergraduate program. This provides evaluation of the undergraduate
part.
23
How can I follow the progress of the self-study?
1. The website:
www.utoledo.edu/campus/about/accreditation/index.html
Email: UTSelfStudy@utoledo.edu
2. The draft of team reports are due Nov 2010. After review
and drafting of full self study report, it will be posted for all
UT members to read and comment.
This is to allow you to tell us what else builds our case for
the excellence of the University’s programs and how the
strategic plan can help to support excellence in the future.
And now, Dr. Shriner, HLC changes in assessment
24