Moving Forward  Transitioning to new Criteria, Pathways and processes

1. Higher Learning Commission A Commission of the North Central Association Moving ForwardTransitioning to new Criteria, Pathways and processes Fall 2012

2. Quick Overview • Two views of the landscape • Changes made • Changes coming • Impact & possibility

3. CONSIDERING CHANGE In 2-3 minutes… Brainstorm and list all the changes you know the Commission has made in the last five years or will make in the next five. Keep your notes handy for the next few slides.

4. Two Views of… The Landscape Give yourself a point for each you listed.

5. Across Time • 2007 – 12:(most after 2009) • Financial Indicators • Multi-location process • Change of Control process • Board action policies (validation, entry, exit) • Minimum Expectations in Criteria • Policies, Part 1 (delivery, locations, decision, minimum expectations, change of control+)

6. Across Time • 2007 – 12:(all after 2010) • Substantive Change—Delivery, Locations, Programs • Notification and Expedited Review (locations) • Achieving Accreditation Process • Eligibility Requirements • Policy Change, Part 2 (documents, sanction, exit session, peer review consulting, eligibility requirements, credit hour +)

7. Across Time • 2007 – 12:(all after 2011) • Decision Process • New Federal Compliance Protocols • Multi-campus • Policy Change, Part 3 (Criteria, Assumed Practices, Obligations, Pathways+)

8. Coming Attractions… • Fall 2012 – 15: • Non-financial Indicators • Notification • Federal Compliance revision (credit hour, contractual, default rate) • New Criteria (Assumed Practices) • Pathways (PEAQ phases out) • Policies, Part 4 (Peer Review+) • Peer Corps structure and roles

9. Coming Attractions… • 2012 – 15: • Web page, Database (HURRAY!) • Web-based guides • SAS, Data Snapshot, OP overhaul • Transparency, public disclosure policies • Assurance System Technology • Collaboration Portal Technology • …and the Commission staff will number +50 people

10. Two Views of… The Landscape Give yourself a point for each you listed.

11. Institution Touch Points Pathways Substantive Change Multi-location Multi-Campus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Institutional Update (Indicator reviews)

12. New Protocols for Reviews Federal ComplianceMulti-Location or Campus ReviewsDistance ReviewsEmbedded Substantive ChangeExit SessionT

13. Impact on Reviews • PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluations • AQIP Systems Appraisals or Quality Checkup Visits, along with Reaffirmation Panel • Pathways Comprehensive Evaluations

14. Federal Compliance • Contractual / Consortial • Default Rate • Credit Hour • New Commission policy and procedures effective January 1, 2012

15. Contractual/Consortial • Approval from HLC when 25% or more delivered by a non-accredited entity (contractual) • Approval from HLC when 50% or more delivered by another accredited entity (consortial)

16. Default Rates • New 3-year default rate review • New data from U.S. Department of Education • Intended to track long-term debt

17. Credit Hour Evaluation • New Commission policy and procedures effective January 1, 2012 • Response to new federal regulations requiring accrediting agencies to ensure the award of academic credit by institutions meets federal expectations

18. Credit Hour Evaluation • Institution completes revised Federal Compliance Program packet • Credit hour worksheet • Course descriptions, schedule • Policy on credit • Team selects a sample of programs to review in greater detail • Focus on compressed format courses • Team determines whether credit allocation is appropriate.

19. Locations & Campuses • No longer require approval of course locations (anywhere)—just notification via annual Institutional Update • Additional location = 50% or more of program (program = certificate, diploma, degree) • A campus is only a campus if it meets all aspects of the definition

20. Multi – Location Reviews • Multi-location based on representative sample, visit only validates • No additional location visits during checkup or comprehensive visits unless < 3 locations and 10 years since a review

21. Multi - Campus Reviews • Multi-Campus sample designated by Commission • Campus visits 1-2 days, 1-2 reviewers; members of main team (templates for institution & reviewer) • Produce review report, no recommendation; Comp or Checkup team evaluates, recommends

22. Distance Delivery • Distance Delivery is BOTH distance AND correspondence education • Distance Education • Multiple modes but instructor facilitated & marked by frequent, required interaction • Correspondence Education • Multiple modes (including online) but student self-paced & marked by little interaction or proactivity on part of instructor

23. Distance Delivery • Definition: 50%+ accessible(program = certificate, diploma, degree) • Commission NO LONGER approves individual programs • Teams & Panels Recommend “initiation up to 5% of total degree programs” • Teams & Panels Recommend ”expansion up to 20% or up to 100% of total degree programs”

24. Embedded Change • Review requires separate change application from institution or no review • Reviewers complete separate report template • Evidence in form needs to stand alone; change is separate review & decision • May refer to evidence provided in evaluation report—just cite it again

25. The Exit Session: Why the Change?

26. Decision Process • Post-visit deliberations, institutional response, & decision process can alter recommendation • Transition to a pathway post-PEAQ impacts when and if monitoring • Recommendations and team report should not be public until after the action in the decision process

27. Institutional Response • Due two weeks after receipt of report • Institution completes formal response (new form); may include five-page letter with new information and data • If response is not received in two weeks, the case is forwarded to decision process with statement indicated no response received • Response expected from President (CEO)

28. Decision Process (simple view) IAC All non-Board Recs. First Committee (webinars, hearings) Second Committee (webinars, hearings) Institutional Response Institutional Response Board Action Recs. Institutional Response Board Change of Control Institutional Response

29. Key Changes • IAC has much more decision scope and authority • Institution has more opportunity for due process; a response after each determination • Potential for two reviews in decision process • Readers process subsumed into IAC committees

30. CONSIDERING IMPACT Discuss the impact on visits… Take 5 minutes to discuss the impact on visits of new policies and processes. Jot down questions to ask. We’ll debrief.

31. Peer Corps Update Changes, New Initiatives and Priorities

32. Expanding the Corps Retirees are great! New policy will allow for continued involvement. Many, many new policies.

33. By 2015: • Add 1000 – 1200 more reviewers • Ongoing webinar training; fall intensive, spring refresher • More defined roles, more roles • New database, resources for reviews • Web page overhauled completely

34. Criteria for AccreditationAssuring Quality in Higher Education

35. Elements • Guiding Values (understandings and intentions underlying Criteria) • Criteria for Accreditation • Core Components

36. Related Elements • Assumed Practices (unlikely to vary by mission, matters of fact rather than judgment—replace minimum expectations) • Obligations of Affiliation and Policies (the meaning of membership) • Federal Requirements

37. Relationship & Evaluation • Criteria(broad statements) • -must be explicitly addressed • Core Components (specific areas of focus, define criterion) - must be explicitly addressed • Subcomponents (not comprehensive)-must be explicitly addressed • Assumed Practices • -addressed only if relevant and only within a Core Component

38. Relationship & Evaluation • Criteria evaluated through all Core Components • Both Criteria and Core Components noted as follows: • Met • Meets or exceeds without concerns • Meets with concerns (follow-up) • Not Met

39. Relationship & Evaluation • Subcomponents integrated into the reviewof Core Components • -Not noted as Met or Not Met

40. Relationship & Evaluation • Assumed Practices: Addressed when Required by • Change of Control, Structure, Organization • Removal from Sanction or Show-Cause • Candidacy, Initial Accreditation

41. Timeline and Transition • Final version adopted by Board of Trustees February 24, 2012 • Revised Criteria effective: • September 1, 2012 for non-affiliated and candidate institutions and for Change of Control • January 1, 2013 for accredited institutions

42. Timeline and Transition • Accredited institutions with 2012-2013 PEAQ comprehensive visits: • Fall 2012 Comprehensive visits use current Criteria • Spring 2013 Comprehensive visits use new Criteria (CROSSWALK AVAILABLE) • Institutions with Fall 2012 AQIP Systems Appraisals use the new Criteria

43. 1. Mission The institution’s mission is clear and articulated publicly; it guides the institution’s operations.

44. 2. Integrity: Ethical & Responsible Conduct The institution acts with integrity; its conduct is ethical and responsible.

45. 3. Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources and Support The institution provides high quality education, wherever and however its offerings are delivered.

46. 4. Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs, learning environments, and support services, and it evaluates their effectiveness for student learning through processes designed to promote continuous improvement.

47. 5. Resources, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness The institution’s resources, structures, and processes are sufficient to fulfill its mission, improve the quality of its educational offerings, and respond to future challenges and opportunities. The institution plans for the future.

48. One Accreditation Multiple Pathways to Reaffirmation Pathways

49. Multiple Pathways Greater Value to Institutions ACCREDITATION Greater Credibility to the Public

50. Multiple Pathways Quality Assurance ACCREDITATION Quality Improvement