The Open Pathway An Overview for 2016

Session Overview 1.  Pathways: Common Elements 2.  Eligibility for the Open Pathway 3.  Logistics: Timeline, Assurance System,

Evidence File 4.  Quality Assurance: Filing the “Assurance

Argument” 5.  Quality Improvement: Creating the “Quality

Initiative” 6.  The Comprehensive Evaluation

Common Elements to All Pathways

Self-Analysis

Institution participates in pathway

Evaluation

Peer Review specific to each Pathway

Decision Process

Evaluation recommendations

Institutional Actions Council

Evaluate report & take action

Institutional response

Inform institution

Activities specific to pathway

Eligible Institutions

•  Accredited for at least 10 years •  No recent Change of Control, Structure, or

Organization •  No recent Commission sanction •  No extensive past or future monitoring •  No significant Commission concerns in areas

such as leadership, student body, or review by governmental agency

Open Pathway: 10-year Cycle

Open Pathway: Assurance Timeline

•  Electronic Assurance Review for Year 4. NO Student Survey; NO Federal Compliance Filing; NO on-campus visit

•  Year 4 reviewers interact with institution electronically and with each other by conference call, and in some cases may require a visit

•  Reaffirmation of Accreditation takes place upon successfully completing the Year 10 Comprehensive Review

Logistics: Preparing for a Review

hlcommission.org/pathways/assurance-system-training.html

The Assurance System

•  Web-based system •  Secure access for 15 institutional

representatives; peer reviewers; HLC staff •  Maintained over entire timeline of HLC

affiliation •  No additional technology needed •  Institution makes the case that it meets the

Criteria for Accreditation using the system by producing an Assurance Argument

Word Limit = 35,000 total

Develop argument and link to evidence

“Writing to the Criteria” •  Produce a Criterion introduction •  Articulate how the Institution is meeting each

Core Component within each Criterion, using appropriate evidence to support the Institution’s argument

•  Use embedded links to take readers directly to materials in the Evidence File

•  Explain how the Institution has addressed any previously-identified concerns

•  Produce a Criterion summary

Assurance Filing: Summary

•  Federal Compliance Report: Only once in the Open Pathway Cycle: Uploaded into system for Year 10 Comprehensive Reviews Only

•  Other material may also be reviewed: (e.g., embedded changes, multi-campus visits)

Add-On Forms

Supplement to review

Evidence File

Accumulate and Update Evidence

Assurance Argument

Write or Update

After HLC Official Action •  HLC archives site •  Decision required by Assurance System

Coordinator (ASC) •  Assurance System Coordinator logs in and

determines how to prepare for the next review:

ü  Clone argument ü  Clone evidence ü  Clone argument and evidence ü  Clone nothing

NOTE: The cloning decision is final and can not be reversed at a later date.

Quality Initiative

•  Identified by institution to suit its needs •  Has appropriate scope, significance, clear outcomes,

evidence of commitment and capacity, realistic timeline •  Conducted between Years 5 and 9

Quality Initiative

•  Institutions determine initiative & write proposal •  Peer reviewers review proposal •  Institutions complete initiative & write report •  Peer reviewers confirm genuine effort & offer feedback

if requested

Institution

Conducts the Initiative

Quality Initiative

Report

Quality Initiative

Proposal

Peer Review

Peer Review

Comprehensive Evaluation: Review •  Reviewers examine several components, including

•  Assurance Review / Evidence File •  Federal Compliance Review •  Other components if required (multi-campus,

embedded change requests) •  Occurs in Yr. 10: for the Open Pathway only (Year

4 is the Assurance Filing only) •  May require interim monitoring •  The “Quality Initiative” is not reviewed by the

Comprehensive Evaluation Team

Comprehensive Evaluation: Visit

•  Team visit in Year 10: 1½-day onsite visit with fixed agenda

•  Team sizes of 3, 5 or 7 (may need more due to complex circumstances)

•  Report leads to a reaffirmation of accreditation decision and Pathway determination at Year 10 (for some institutions at Year 4)

•  Student Satisfaction Survey (new)

The Visit differs from PEAQ

•  Prior to the visit, the Peer Review Team conducts an electronic review

•  Customary meetings are scheduled •  Targeted “areas of focus” may be defined by

the Peer Review Team in advance •  Engagement of the institution’s constituents

take place in Open Forums & Student Survey •  Additional reviews may be required (e.g., multi-

campus visits)

Open Pathway: Outcome

The Team Report (Assurance Review) and the Quality Initiative Report remain separate reports, but these items are brought together in HLC’s Decision Process in Year 10.

Due Process and Decision-Making

•  Peer reviewers create a draft report which is shared with the institution

•  Institution identifies and corrects errors-of-fact in the draft team report

•  Institution receives the final team report •  Institution has opportunity to provide a formal

written response to be considered by IAC •  IAC reads the full record, affirms or denies the

recommendations, and issues an “action letter” affirming the Institution’s status

Reaffirmation and Outcomes •  “Reaffirmation of Accreditation” is the

culminating action of the Comprehensive Evaluation for an institution’s continued accreditation and takes place only at the time of the Year 10 review on the Open Pathway

•  If the Team recommends a Focused Visit (or a more severe sanction) in Year 4 or in Year 10, the institution will be removed from the Open Pathway

•  As a part of their recommendations to IAC, peer review teams recommend a Pathway (i.e., the institution is “eligible to choose” any Pathway or is “limited to Standard”)

Additional Resources

•  Assurance Arguments and Evidence Files: Visit the HLC Booth in the Exhibit Hall to view five (5) sample Assurance Arguments produced by member institutions.

•  Quality Initiatives: Visit the following website to view sixteen (16) different quality initiative proposals: qi.hlcommission.org

jrosen@hlcommission.org