1 / 40

NCA/HLC REACCREDITATION VISIT April 27-30, 2003

NCA/HLC REACCREDITATION VISIT April 27-30, 2003. Why Accreditation Matters?. Certifies to state & federal governments that institution & students are eligible for financial aid Provides formal quality assurance to stakeholders

rune
Download Presentation

NCA/HLC REACCREDITATION VISIT April 27-30, 2003

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NCA/HLC REACCREDITATION VISIT April 27-30, 2003

  2. Why Accreditation Matters? • Certifies to state & federal governments that institution & students are eligible for financial aid • Provides formal quality assurance to stakeholders • Encourages an institution to review itself & thereby improve its programs

  3. NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION of COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS Membership organization One of 6 regional associations Covers 19 states HIGHER LEARNING COMMISSION The accrediting unit of NCA Accredits institutions, not individual programs within institutions The Name Game

  4. Steps in the Process • Intensive self-study & reflection on those findings • Writing the Self-Study Report, including • General Institutional Requirements • Basic Institutional Data • Visit by external team to validate results • Review of team recommendations by accreditation board

  5. OUR TARGET: BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME Continuation of full accreditation, with the next comprehensive evaluation to occur in 10 years * A 6-year accreditation is a satisfactory result and will be considered successful

  6. COUNTDOWN TO VISIT! • April 27 Team arrives on campus • April 28-29 Interviews • April 30 Exit Interview • May 1 Celebration of Completion • May-August UA responds to team report as necessary • Fall 2003 Receive continuing accreditation

  7. WHO’S WHO: HLC TEAM MEMBERS • Dr. Phillip Jones, Chair • VP, Student Services, University of Iowa

  8. WHO’S WHO: HLC TEAM MEMBERS • Dr. Donald Bennion • Director, Academic Assessment, Eastern Michigan University • Dr. Sandra Marie Flake • Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, University of Northern Colorado

  9. WHO’S WHO: HLC TEAM MEMBERS • Dr. Juan Franco • Regents Chief of Staff, New Mexico State University • Dr. Lin Holder • Associate VP, Academic Affairs, Saint Cloud State University

  10. WHO’S WHO: HLC TEAM MEMBERS • Dr. John Ory • Director, Instructional Resources, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign • Dr. Kathleen Rountree • Dean, College of Performing & Visual Arts, University of Northern Colorado

  11. WHO’S WHO: HLC TEAM MEMBERS • Dr. Gail Scukanec • Associate Dean, Graduate Studies & Research, Central Michigan University

  12. ACCREDITATION HISTORY Accomplishments and Challenges

  13. ACCOMPLISHMENTS • UA has been fully accredited by North Central since 1914 • UA has received consistently strong endorsements of academic programs & institutional vitality • UA has received favorable findings by the focus visit team

  14. CHALLENGES • UA received only a five-year extension of full accreditation during the 1997 regular visit • UA sustained a focus visit in 2000 on planning & budgeting

  15. RESPONSES TO CRITICAL CONCERNS • Stability in administration • Participatory budget process • New approaches to aligning resources & productivity (ROI) • Emergence of Charting the Course as the vision and strategic intent for UA

  16. RESPONSES TO CRITICAL CONCERNS • Merging of Human Resources & EEO • Review of major rules including RTP • Implementation of PeopleSoft • Increased communication about budgeting • Adoption of Balanced Scorecard methodology to implement the vision of Charting the Course

  17. PATTERNS OF EVIDENCE UA’s Case for Full Continuing Accreditation

  18. HLC CRITERIA • Mission • Resources • Accomplishing Our Purposes • Planning • Integrity

  19. CRITERION ONE: MISSIONKey Findings • Institutional vision, mission & values publicly stated and understood by constituencies • Appropriate decision-making processes • Freedom of inquiry for faculty & students • Institutional commitment to excellence in teaching & learning

  20. CRITERION ONE: MISSIONCharting the Course • Ongoing process of strategic thinking • Clusters of excellence • Discovery & innovation • Cultural enrichment • Community well-being • Economic development

  21. CRITERION ONE: MISSIONBalanced Scorecard • Strategic Destination: • Public Research University for Northern Ohio • Student Success • Knowledge for Public Good Student Success + Community Engagement = Akron Advantage

  22. CRITERION TWO: RESOURCESKey Findings • Informed Board of Trustees • Qualified faculty & administration • Shared leadership as means of decision-making

  23. CRITERION TWO: RESOURCESKey Findings • Faculty hold appropriate credentials • Sufficient enrollment (24,000) to meet stated purposes • Academic & support services afford all students the opportunity to succeed

  24. CRITERION TWO: RESOURCESKey Findings • $200 Million Landscape for Learning: • Green space (30,000 new trees) • Open space (addition of 31 acres) • Easier access for vehicles, more parking and better pedestrian connections • Addition of six new buildings and three new parking decks

  25. CRITERION TWO: RESOURCESKey Findings • Pattern of financial expenditures shows commitment to effective teaching: • Institute for Teaching & Learning • Wired for Wireless Initiative • WebCT • Enrollment Management Strategies

  26. CRITERION THREE: ACCOMPLISHING OUR PURPOSESKey Findings • Courses of study are clearly defined, coherent & intellectually rigorous: • Success in external professional accreditations • Student performance on proficiency exams & other assessments • High quality & coherent General Education program • 15.7:1 student/faculty ratio

  27. CRITERION THREE: ACCOMPLISHING OUR PURPOSESKey Findings • Evidence of support for: • Basic & applied research • Fine & creative arts • Effective delivery of education & other services • Effective courses & programs • Ongoing professional development for faculty & staff

  28. CRITERION THREE: ACCOMPLISHING OUR PURPOSESKey Findings • Faculty control of student learning & granting of academic credit • Mastery of level of knowledge appropriate for degree attained • Results of internal & external peer review processes used to assure quality

  29. CRITERION THREE: ACCOMPLISHING OUR PURPOSESKey Findings • Appropriate assessment of academic achievement: • Externally accredited programs • All programs to have clearly defined levels of skills & competencies by Fall 2006 per Balanced Scorecard Initiative

  30. CRITERION FOUR: PLANNINGKey Findings • Financial, physical & human resources that position University for future: • Stability in administration • Greater access to management information • Active governance & advisory groups • Landscape for Learning • Revenue diversification strategies

  31. CRITERION FOUR: PLANNINGKey Findings • Structured assessment processes: • New enterprise system (PeopleSoft) linking business, HR, & academic processes in real time • Interactive management tools such as Brio • Collection & use of benchmark data for decision- making

  32. CRITERION FOUR: PLANNINGKey Findings • Plans necessary to institution’s continuance: • Charting the Course • Balanced Scorecard • Return on Investment

  33. CRITERION FIVE: INTEGRITYKey Findings • Policies, Practices and Publications: • Electronic access to rules & regulations • Transcripts follow commonly accepted practices & reflect student learning • Policies for resolution of grievances & disputes • Accuracy in publications & advertisements • Ethical & collaborative relations with sister institutions • Proper oversight of contracts

  34. A BED OF ROSES?

  35. ONGOING CHALLENGES: PROCESSES • Promoting open communication • Achieving shared leadership • Strengthening planning & budgeting • Adopting performance-based system of student assessment across all programs

  36. ONGOING CHALLENGES: RESOURCES • Growing student enrollments • Coping with Ohio’s economic climate • Addressing salary compression & inequities • Adjusting priorities & programs in line with resource base • Addressing deferred maintenance issues • Transitioning to new & improved facilities

  37. FUTURE PLANS • Focus research in strategic areas of opportunity • Enhance instructional effectiveness • Retain & recruit high-quality faculty & staff • Bring faculty salaries to 75th percentile of Ohio public universities • Assure continued diversification of financial base

  38. STEERING COMMITTEE CONCLUSIONS • Significant progress & ongoing work in addressing critical concerns • UA meets all HLC general institutional requirements (GIRs) & criteria • Requests continuing full accreditation

  39. WHAT YOU CAN DO

  40. Critical Role: Faculty, Contract Professionals & Staff • Understand HLC standards & expectations • Know the difference between program & institutional accreditation • Welcome the consultant evaluators • Participate in the visit • Know your University of Akron!

More Related