Higher Learning CommissionA Commission of the North Central Association

Moving Forward

Transitioning to new Criteria, Pathways and processes

Fall 2012

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.

4

The LandscapeGive yourself a point for each you

listed.

Two Views of…

5

Across Time

■2007 – 12: (most after 2009)Financial IndicatorsMulti-location processChange of Control processBoard action policies (validation, entry, exit) Minimum Expectations in CriteriaPolicies, 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 ProcessEligibility RequirementsPolicy Change, Part 2 (documents, sanction,

exit session, peer review consulting, eligibility requirements, credit hour +)

7

Across Time

■2007 – 12: (all after 2011)Decision ProcessNew Federal Compliance ProtocolsMulti-campusPolicy Change, Part 3 (Criteria, Assumed

Practices, Obligations, Pathways+)

8

Coming Attractions…■Fall 2012 – 15:

Non-financial IndicatorsNotificationFederal 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 guidesSAS, Data Snapshot, OP overhaulTransparency, public disclosure policiesAssurance System TechnologyCollaboration Portal Technology

…and the Commission staff will number +50 people

10

The LandscapeGive yourself a point for each you

listed.

Two Views of…

11

Institution Touch Points

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910

Pathways Substantive Change

Multi-location Multi-Campus

Institutional Update (Indicator reviews)

Federal Compliance

Multi-Location or Campus ReviewsDistance Reviews

Embedded Substantive ChangeExit Session

T

New Protocols for Reviews

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

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

Locations & Campuses

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 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

Distance Delivery

23

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”

Distance Delivery

24

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

Embedded Change

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

Decision Process

27

■Due two weeks after receipt of reportInstitution 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

Allnon-Board

Recs.

IAC

Board ActionRecs.

Board

First Committee(webinars, hearings)Second Committee(webinars, hearings)

Decision Process (simple view)

Change of Control

Institutional Response

Institutional Response

Institutional Response

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…

1. Take 5 minutes to discuss the impact on visits of new policies and processes.

2. Jot down questions to ask.

3. We’ll debrief.

Peer Corps Update

Changes, New Initiatives and Priorities

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

32

Expanding the Corps

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

Criteria for Accreditation

Assuring Quality in Higher Education

35

Elements

Guiding Values (understandings and intentions underlying Criteria)

Criteria for Accreditation

Core Components

36

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

Related Elements

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 review of 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.

PATHWAYS One AccreditationMultiple Pathways to Reaffirmation

Greater Value to Institutions

ACCREDITATION

Greater Credibilityto the Public

Multiple Pathways

49

Quality Assurance

ACCREDITATION

Quality Improvement

Multiple Pathways

50

Participation

InstitutionParticipatesin Pathway

Evaluation

Peer Review per thePathway process

DecisionProcess

EvaluationRecommendations

Institutional ActionsCouncil

Read the recordand take Action

InstitutionalResponse

InformInstitution

Activitiesdistinct toPathway

Anatomy of a Pathway

51

Multiple Pathways

(last page)52

AQIP Pathway

Standard Pathway

Open Pathway

Pathways for Reaffirmation of

Accreditation

53

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

1

4

7Cycles of SystematicQuality Improvement

AQIP Pathway

55

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 MnSCU’s electonic portfolio

Technology for Pathways

56

THE ASSURANCE SYSTEMTechnology for the Standard and Open Pathways

Evidence File (uploaded materials)

Assurance Argument (the narrative)

Additional Materials (depending on process)

Peer Review Process

Assurance System

58

59

Assurance SystemWeb-based system

Secure access for institutional representatives (3 “official” plus 12 more), peer reviewers, HLC staff

Maintained over entire timeline of HLC affiliation

HLC’s Assurance System is “all that is required” unless institution chooses other systems to help it organize materials, manage a process, etc.

Commission DocumentsSupplement to Review

EvidenceFile

Accumulate & Update

Evidence

Assurance SystemAssuranc

e Argument

Write or Update

60

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

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

For each criterion, institution offers:Criterion introductionAn 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

Accumulated evidence in Commission-hosted Evidence File

Periodic updating by institutionAssurance Argument that is brief,

thorough, sustained across cyclesOther HLC processes integratedProactive review with time to

address issues

Diminishing Burden

64

Quality Assurance

ACCREDITATION

Quality Improvement

Standard Pathway

65

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

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

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

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

Quality Improvement

ACCREDITATION

Quality Assurance (including

compliance)

Open Pathway

Quality Improvem

entFOCUS

SPLIT QualityAssurance

70

Assurance Process

Quality Initiative

Open Pathway

Quality Improvem

ent

QualityAssurance

71

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

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

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

Evaluation in PathwaysQuality Assurance and Improvement in Pathways

76

Types of Evaluations

The Assurance Review is an online evaluation of the institution’s 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

Overview of ReviewsOpen Pathway

Assurance Review in Year 4

Comprehensive Evaluation (w/visit) in Year 10

Reaffirmation in Year 10 (requires fulfillment of the Quality Initiative)

Standard PathwayComprehensive Evaluations (w/visit) in

Years 4 & 10

Reaffirmation of Accreditation occurs in Year 10 (occurs in Year 4 during Initial Accreditation)

Full Cycle to Reaffirmation*

Pathway Year 4Review

Year 10Review

Reaffirmation in Year

10

Standard w/ visitComp

w/ visitComp ➡ ✓

Open w/o visit w/ visitComp + QI ✓

*Cycle is always 10 years in Standard and Open; no shortened cycles. 78

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

MetWithout concernsWith 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

Institution identifies errors-of-fact

Team revises as appropriate

Institution receives final team report

Institution has opportunity to provide a response

Due Process

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

PATHWAYS

Transition Timeline and Implications for Institutions

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

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

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

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

No institution (other than Pioneers) has Comprehensive or Assurance Review until 2014-15 (a few in Standard) or 2015-16 (Open)

Samples of Open and Standard Pathway materials available in 2012; Assurance System available for testing now

Transition Notes

88

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. We’ll debrief.