1

HLC Open Pathways Process

Dev VenugopalanUW-Milwaukee

December 2, 2011

2

Overview of Open Pathways Process

• Bifurcation of institutional review– Assurance Process • Evidence File and Assurance Argument

– Improvement Process• Quality Initiative

• Available to institutions with a history of meeting the threshold standards for accreditation

• More emphasis on improvement process

3

Assurance Process

• Two assurance reviews– 4th year and 10th year of cycle

• Two items reviewed:– Evidence file– Assurance argument

• 4th year review done online• 10th year review includes campus visit

4

Evidence File

• Commission section– HLC inputs documents from previous review,

interim reports, data from AIDU, public comments, etc

• Institutional section– Evidentiary materials to show how the elements

of criteria are met– Uploaded into the electronic “portfolio” template

on HLC website

5

Evidence File - Institutional

• Commercial vendor application (CampusLabs)• Access limited to a few individuals from the

institution• Each item must be explicitly referenced in the

assurance argument and linked to at least one criterion element– OK to just provide links to certain information

stored on campus server (e.g. course catalogs, class schedules, faculty bios)

6

Assurance Argument

• 35,000 word limit• Organized by Criteria and Core Components• Articulation of how each Core Component is

met• For each statement provide links to materials

in Evidence File• Analysis of gaps and future plans

7

4th Year Assurance Review

• Review of electronic files at a distance• Asynchronous review over a period of time• Visit only in exceptional cases when there is

uncertainty about evidence that requires a visit

• No reaffirmation decision in the 4th year• Clears institution to proceed with its Quality

Initiative

8

10th Year Assurance Review

• Review of electronic files and a visit• Assurance review combined with review of

Quality Initiative• Triggers the Decision process on reaffirmation

of accreditation

9

The Improvement Process

• Occurs between Years 4 and 10 in cycle• Institution takes on a Quality Initiative – Take risks, aim high– Learn from successes and failures

• Quality Initiative review in 9th year of cycle

10

Quality Initiative

• Institution designed major initiative• Institution chooses from a menu of topics, e.g.– Broad self-evaluation leading to revision of

mission, vision, and goals– Systemic, comprehensive assessment and

improvement of learning– Partnership with a community college

• HLC facilitated program (Academy for Assessment, AQIP)

11

Quality Initiative Proposal

• Submitted in the year following the 4th year review

• Proposal is peer reviewed on the following– sufficiency of scope and significance;– clarity of outcomes;– evidence of commitment and capacity; and– a realistic timeline.

• Paper review or QI Forum

12

Quality Initiative

• Upon approval of QI by HLC, the institution works on the initiative– Multi-year project – May be a longer initiative with key milestones to

be completed by 9th year• UWM QI: “Renewing our Commitment to

Undergraduate Education”– General education reform, and systemic and

comprehensive assessment and improvement of student learning

13

QI Report and Review

• Report submitted in Year 9• Peer review at a distance on – the seriousness of the undertaking,

– the significance of scope and impact of the work,

– the genuineness of commitment to and sustained engagement in the initiative,

– and adequate resource provision.

• Campus visit on QI?

14

Reaffirmation Decision

• QI review report combined with assurance review report

• Recommendations of both teams reviewed by HLC staff who write a summary

• Final decision on reaffirmation, follow-up requirements, or sanctions– Continued participation in the Open Pathways for

the next cycle is one of the decisions