Overview of Institutional Accreditation by HLC

1. Institutional Accreditation:An Overview HLC Accreditation Kick-Off March 24, 2006

2. Kick-Off Agenda • Welcoming Remarks and Introductions • Accreditation Overview and Terminology—Bege Bowers • Timeline 2006-2008—Sharon Stringer • Committees’ First Assignment—Jan Elias • Training, SC and Committee Chairs

3. ACCREDITATION OVERVIEW AND TERMINOLOGY

4. An External Validation of Quality “What Is Accreditation?” • Conferred by an outside agency, accreditation is external certification of the quality and integrity of an educational program or institution.

5. “What Is Accreditation?” A Process of Self-Evaluation • Internal “critical self-analysis leading to improvement in quality”; one of the most, if not THE most important self-assessments an institution undertakes.

6. Types of Accreditation • “Specialized,” program- or discipline-specific, e.g., • ABET—Engineering, Engineering Technology • NCATE—Education • AACSB—Business • Commission on Accreditation in PhysicalTherapy—PT • Institutional

7. YSU’s Institutional Accreditation • YSU is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission, a division of the North Central Association—one of 6 regional accrediting organizations.

8. The Higher Learning Commission’s Nineteen-State Region 1000± institutions 50% public, 50% private 30% two-year; 3% for profit

9. Focus of Institutional Accreditation • Assess the quality and effectiveness of the institution • Make recommendations for improvement • Assist the institution in making improvements in operations and effectiveness

10. Bases of Evaluation • Evaluates the “entire educational organization” in light of • The institution’s mission, and • The agency’s standards and criteria

11. Basis of Evaluation, cont’d • Assesses: • Student Learning • Educational Activities • Governance and Administration • Administrative and Student Services

12. Bases of Evaluation, cont’d • Assesses: • Financial Stability • Institutional Resources (Faculty/Staff/Capital/Other) • Every Aspect of the Institution • Relationships with/among Internal and External Constituencies

13. Structure/Rubric of Evaluation • Five Criteria • Twenty-one Core Components (4 or 5 per criterion) • Many Examples of Evidence

14. Structure of Evaluation • Five Criteria: “necessary attributes” of an organization accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (current criteria went into effect in 2005—we must meet all)

15. The Five Criteria/Categories 3. Student Learning & Effective Teaching 2. Preparing for the Future 1. Mission & Integrity Future-oriented Connected Distinctive Learning-focused 4. Acquisition, Discovery, & Application of Knowledge 5. Engagement & Service

16. Example of Criterion For example, Criterion 1, “Mission & Integrity,” states “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.”

17. Structure of Evaluation, cont’d • Twenty-one Core Components (4 or 5 per criterion—statements about aspects of the criteria; we must address each) For example, under “Mission and Integrity”: “The organization’s mission documents are clear and articulate publicly the organization’s commitments.”

18. Structure of Evaluation, cont’d • Examples of Evidence (selected, specific illustrations of how we meet a criterion and core component—the handbook provides some; we provide some) Example: The mission statement and strategic plan are available to the public through the university catalogs and on the web.

19. Summary, Structure of Evaluation • Five Criteria • Twenty-one Core Components (4 or 5 per criterion) • Many Examples of Evidence

20. Steps in the Accreditation Process • Annual Reports to the HLC • Demographic • Financial • Programs • Scope of Activities

21. Steps in the Accreditation Process, cont’d • Multi-Year Self-Study Process (open, transparent, engages entire university, all constituencies)

22. Steps in the Accreditation Process, cont’d Self-Study in this sense = • a process of critical self-evaluation

23. Who’s involved in the self-study? Everyone, with specific roles for • Five criteria committees • Steering Committee • Self-study Coordinators

24. Five Criteria Committees • Each assesses whether YSU meets the assigned criterion and its core components • Submits a progress report and a final report based on a process Jan will describe

25. Steering Committee • Reps bring their committee’s questions/concerns to the Steering Committee • SC assists the coordinators and serves as a clearinghouse for committees’ questions and reports • SC helps set up “resource room” and plan for team visit

26. Steps in the Accreditation Process, cont’d • Extensive Self-Study Report (evaluative, self-critical)

27. Steps in the Accreditation Process, cont’d Self-Study in this sense = • a document (hard-copy/ electronic) showing how well we meet the 5 criteria and 21 core components—identifies our strengths, challenges, future steps

28. Steps in the Accreditation Process, cont’d • 3-Day Site Visit by 8-10 Consultant-Evaluators • Evaluative • Investigative (can question anyone)

29. Steps in the Accreditation Process, cont’d • Consultant-Evaluators’ Team Report • Assurance: Evaluation against the Five Criteria • Advancement: Recommendations for Improvement • Consultation

30. Steps in the Accreditation Process, cont’d • Commission Review/Action • Accredit for up to 10 years • Accredit, but require progress reports • Accredit, but require focused visits • Probation • Withdraw accreditation

31. Steps in the Accreditation Process, cont’d • Commission Review/Action • Accredit for up to 10 years • Accredit, but require progress reports • Accredit, but require focused visits • Probation • Withdraw accreditation

32. YSU’S ACCREDITATION TIMELINE

33. YSU Time Line • Spring 2006 Orientation & Planning • Fall 2006 Information Gathering & Analyses

34. Time Line, cont’d • January 15-March 15, 2007 Synthesis & Reporting • March 15-August 15, 2007 Integration & Dissemination

35. Time Line, cont’d • August 15-December 15, 2007 Feedback, revision, & submission of self study • Feb 18-20, 2008 HLC Team Visit

36. Time Line, cont’d • Summer 2008 Team Report & Commission Action • Fall 2008 Strategic Planning

37. PHASE 1 ORIENTATION & PLANNING Spring 2006

38. PHASE 1 TASKS • Develop Questions • Identify Resources • Assign Responsibilities • Report Progress

39. DEVELOPING QUESTIONS • Address the core components • Use “examples of evidence” as a springboard

40. Example – Criterion 4 • Core component 4d • The organization provides support to ensure that faculty, students, and staff acquire, discover, and apply knowledge responsibly. • Example of Evidence • The organization creates, disseminates, and enforces clear policies on practices involving intellectual property rights

41. Example of Evidence The organization creates, disseminates, and enforces clear policies on practices involving intellectual property rights Sample Question What evidence is there that the University has created, disseminated, and enforced clear policies and practices involving intellectual property rights? Turn Examples into questions

42. Examples of Evidence • Not listed in brochure but are available in the Handbook of Accreditation (on-line at http://www.ysu.edu/accreditation/) • Will be provided on the Progress Report Form (available at the website) • Do not all have to be used • Committee may add questions in addition to those prompted by the examples

43. Developing Questions • Avoid closed questions that can be answered only yes or no • Use open-ended questions that • Elicit description of evidence • Elicit evaluation of strengths and challenges

44. Helpful question stems • What evidence is there…. • To what extent does YSU…. • How well does …. • How adequate are ….

45. IDENTIFYING RESOURCES • People • Documents

46. People Committees & Councils e.g., Senate Committees, Diversity Council, Assessment Council Organizational Units e.g., Student Life, Metro College, Maag Library

47. Documents Accreditation website at http://www.ysu.edu/accreditation/ provides some suggestions & links Search YSU website Examples: Board of Trustees Policies Union Contracts Mission Statement Strategic Plan

48. ASSIGNING RESPONSIBILITIES Be specific (When everyone is responsible—no one is responsible) Take advantage of existing linkages (e.g., to committees and offices) Two individuals assigned to a task provides insurance

49. Delegating A criterion committee may delegate responsibility for addressing some questions to another group (e.g., Senate committee) IF that group agrees to accept the charge A criterion committee member should be assigned liaison responsibility

50. REPORTING PROGRESS Form provided electronically on website Core components and examples of evidence will be on the form Complete the other 3 columns Submit by May 5, 2006, electronically to bkbowers@ysu.edu and hard-copy to Office of Provost