Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Higher Learning Commission A Commission of the North Central Association Transitioning to new Criteria, Pathways and processes Moving Forward Transitioning."— Presentation transcript:

1 Higher Learning Commission A Commission of the North Central Association Transitioning to new Criteria, Pathways and processes 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 2

3 CONSIDERING CHANGE In 2-3 minutes… 1.Brainstorm and list all the changes you know the Commission has made in the last five years or will make in the next five. 2.Keep your notes handy for the next few slides. 3

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

5 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 6 Across Time 2007 – 12: (all after 2010) Substantive ChangeDelivery, 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 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 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 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 10 The Landscape Give yourself a point for each you listed. Two Views of…

11 11 Institution Touch Points PathwaysSubstantive Change Multi-locationMulti-Campus Institutional Update (Indicator reviews)

12 Federal Compliance Multi-Location or Campus Reviews Distance Reviews Embedded Substantive Change Exit Session T New Protocols for Reviews

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

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

15 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 16 Default Rates New 3-year default rate review New data from U.S. Department of Education Intended to track long-term debt

17 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 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 19 No longer require approval of course locations (anywhere)just notification via annual Institutional Update 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) 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 A campus is only a campus if it meets all aspects of the definition Locations & Campuses

20 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 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 22 Distance Delivery is BOTH distance AND correspondence education Distance Delivery is BOTH distance AND correspondence education Distance Education Distance Education Multiple modes but instructor facilitated & marked by frequent, required interaction Multiple modes but instructor facilitated & marked by frequent, required interaction Correspondence Education Correspondence Education Multiple modes (including online) but student self-paced & marked by little interaction or proactivity on part of instructor Multiple modes (including online) but student self-paced & marked by little interaction or proactivity on part of instructor Distance Delivery

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

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

25 25 The Exit Session: Why the Change?

26 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 26 Decision Process

27 27 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) Institutional Response

28 28 Allnon-BoardRecs. IAC Board Action Recs. Board First Committee (webinars, hearings) Second Committee (webinars, hearings) Decision Process (simple view) 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 29

30 CONSIDERING IMPACT Discuss the impact on visits… 1.Take 5 minutes to discuss the impact on visits of new policies and processes. 2.Jot down questions to ask. 3.Well debrief. 30

31 Peer Corps Update Changes, New Initiatives and Priorities

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

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 33

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

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

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

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

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

39 39 Relationship & Evaluation Subcomponents integrated into the review of Core Components Subcomponents integrated into the review of Core Components -Not noted as Met or Not Met

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

41 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 42 Timeline and Transition Accredited institutions with 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 43 1. Mission The institutions mission is clear and articulated publicly; it guides the institutions operations.

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

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

46 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 47 5. Resources, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness The institutions 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

49 Multiple Pathways 49

50 Multiple Pathways 50

51 Institution Participates in Pathway Peer Review per the Pathway process Evaluation Recommendations Institutional Actions Council Read the record and take Action Institutional Response Inform Institution Activities distinct to Pathway Anatomy of a Pathway 51

52 Multiple Pathways (last page) 52

53 AQIP Pathway Standard Pathway Open Pathway Pathways for Reaffirmation of Accreditation 53

54 Seven-year accrediting cycle, options for monitoring Three sub-cycles: Action Cycle: Projects every year Strategic Cycle: Systems Portfolio & Appraisal every 4 years Reaffirmation Cycle: Quality Checkup Visit & Panel Reaffirmation every 7 years Does not use Assurance System (technology) at this point AQIP Pathway 54

55 1 4 7 Cycles of Systematic Quality Improvement AQIP Pathway 55

56 The Assurance System (Open & Standard) Collaboration Network (Open Pathway QI; for all in the Academy for Assessment of Student Learning) AQIP Action Project Directory & Option for institutions to use MnSCUs electonic portfolio Technology for Pathways 56

57 Technology for the Standard and Open Pathways

58 Evidence File (uploaded materials) Assurance Argument (the narrative) Additional Materials (depending on process) Peer Review Process Assurance System 58

59 59 Assurance System Web-based system Secure access for institutional representatives (3 official plus 12 more), peer reviewers, HLC staff Maintained over entire timeline of HLC affiliation HLCs Assurance System is all that is required unless institution chooses other systems to help it organize materials, manage a process, etc.

60 Commission Documents Supplement to Review Evidence File Accumulate & Update Evidence Assurance System Assurance Argument Write or Update 60

61 61 Assurance Filing Evidence File HLC-provided materials Institution-provided materials Addendum space (as needed) Assurance Argument Add-on templates as applicable (Federal Compliance in comprehensive evaluations) Institutional View

62 62 35,000 word limit (40,000 for Standard Pathway) Links to uploaded evidence Organized by Criteria and Core Components; highly structured format Assurance Argument concept replaces the Self-Study model Assurance Argument

63 For each criterion, institution offers: Criterion introduction An articulation of how each Core Component within each Criterion is met: (how and why met, improvement, constraints, threats to maintain, opportunities, future plans) Links to evidence in materials in Evidence File A Criterion Summary Assurance Argument 63

64 Accumulated evidence in Commission-hosted Evidence File Periodic updating by institution Assurance Argument that is brief, thorough, sustained across cycles Other HLC processes integrated Proactive review with time to address issues Diminishing Burden 64

65 Standard Pathway 65

66 Ten-year accrediting cycle; comprehensive evaluations in Years 4 & 10 Required for all institutions in first ten-year period of accreditation Open to all institutions Serves as Pathway for institutions not eligible for Open or AQIP Pathways Uses Assurance System (technology) Standard Pathway 66

67 Assurance Filing has added elements in some cases Assurance Argument has additional text boxes and added length to address required areas of improvement Assurance Argument and review address both assurance and improvement in relationship to Criteria (no separate Quality Initiative) Possibility of focused visits and interim reports in years 1-3 and 5-9 Elements of Evaluation 67

68 Accredited for fewer than 10 years by HLC Has undergone Change of Control in last two years Has been under sanction or related action within last five years Has a history of extensive monitoring Has present circumstances or developments that raise significant HLC concerns Limited to Standard Pathway 68

69 Has been undergoing rapid change, plans to, or is marked by frequent change approvals since last reaffirmation Failed to make a serious effort in conducting its Quality Initiative in the Open Pathway ALL institutions are eligible and may choose the Standard Pathway. Limited to Standard Pathway 69

70 Open Pathway Quality Improvement FOCUS SPLIT Quality Assurance 70

71 Assurance Process Quality Initiative Open Pathway Quality Improvement Quality Assurance 71

72 Ten-year accrediting cycle Assurance Review (at distance) in Year 4; Comprehensive Evaluation in Year 10 Improvement separated from Assurance; i.e. opens the Pathway for focus on QI Monitoring need reduced (no focused visits) Uses Assurance System (technology) Open Pathway 72

73 Accredited 10+ years by HLC Has not undergone Change of Control in last two years Has not been under sanction or related action within last five years Does not have history of extensive monitoring Has not been undergoing rapid change or marked by frequent change approvals since last reaffirmation Factors for Participation in Open and AQIP Pathway 73

74 Institutional Update (financial and non- financial indicator review) Substantive change and notification requirements Multi-location and multi-campus requirements Obligations Criteria and all their elements All Pathways 74

75 Quality Assurance and Improvement in Pathways

76 76 Types of Evaluations The Assurance Review is an online evaluation of the institutions Assurance Filing (evidence file, assurance argument) and any other required materials. The Comprehensive Evaluation includes the online Assurance Review, as well as review of Federal Compliance Review, an on-site visit (1 ½ days), and other components if required (multi-campus, delivery review, embedded change).

77 77 Overview of Reviews Open Pathway Assurance Review in Year 4 Comprehensive Evaluation (w/visit) in Year 10 Reaffirmation in Year 10 (requires fulfillment of the Quality Initiative) Standard Pathway Comprehensive Evaluations (w/visit) in Years 4 & 10 Reaffirmation of Accreditation occurs in Year 10 (occurs in Year 4 during Initial Accreditation)

78 Full Cycle to Reaffirmation* Pathway Year 4 Review Year 10 Review Reaffirmatio n in Year 10 Standard w/ visit Comp w/ visit Comp Openw/o visit w/ visit Comp + QI *Cycle is always 10 years in Standard and Open; no shortened cycles. 78

79 79 Two peer reviewers assigned lead responsibility to each Criterion; everyone shares responsibility, however Lead reviewers facilitate discussion about each Criterion on conference call Lead reviewers construct draft analysis and recommendation; share with entire team Final team analysis and recommendation Assurance Review Highlights

80 80 Met Without concerns With concerns (means HLC follow-up) Not met No reference to Assumed Practices (previously known as Minimum Expectations) unless not met Each Criterion & Core Component

81 81 Institution identifies errors-of-fact Team revises as appropriate Institution receives final team report Institution has opportunity to provide a response Due Process

82 82 Year 4 Open & Standard: IAC affirms findings; IAC takes additional action as necessary; no reaffirmation except as called for by process Year 10 Open Pathway: Combined with QI Results for final action on reaffirmation of accreditation & action on pathway participation Year 10 Standard Pathway: Final action on reaffirmation of accreditation & action on pathway participation Decision

83 Transition Timeline and Implications for Institutions

84 Institutions with PEAQ comprehensive visits before August 2015: Remain in PEAQ, complete the visit, and transition to pathways after the decision process Pathway determined between Commission and Institution Begin at year one in Open, AQIP, or Standard Pathway Transition Timeline 84

85 All other accredited institutions: Spring – Summer 2012: Institutions receive letter and information on transition to and choice of pathways Pathway determined between Commission and Institution Transition 9/1/12 to appropriate point in pathway (see charts at end of booklets) Transition Timeline 85

86 Institutions remaining in AQIP continue on the Pathway Institutions choosing AQIP should become knowledgeable on process and timelines for transition (no need to wait; AQIP in place now) Institutions may move from AQIP to Open based on next reaffirmation: Wait if within year of Quality Checkup Transition into Year 5, 6, or 7 of Open Transition Options 86

87 January 2013: Revised Criteria effective (Pathways rolls out with new Criteria) Fall 2013: Assurance System available to Open and Standard Pathway institutions Summer 2015: PEAQ ends, all institutions transitioned Transition Timeline 87

88 No institution (other than Pioneers) has Comprehensive or Assurance Review until (a few in Standard) or (Open) No institution (other than Pioneers) has Comprehensive or Assurance Review until (a few in Standard) or (Open) Samples of Open and Standard Pathway materials available in 2012; Assurance System available for testing now Transition Notes 88

89 Open Pathway Transition See individual maps by reaffirmation year. Similar transition map for Standard Pathway 89

90 CONSIDERING PATHWAYS Pathways at a Glance… 1.Discuss what you heard about Pathways. 2.What are your questions? Observations? 3.Well debrief. 90


Download ppt "Higher Learning Commission A Commission of the North Central Association Transitioning to new Criteria, Pathways and processes Moving Forward Transitioning."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google