Pathways for Reaffirmation

M

oving

B

etween

P

athways

The Commission has three pathways for reaffirmation of accreditation: Standard, Open and AQIP. This information outlines the rules and timing for institutions moving between these pathways.

I

s

, o

aQIp p

Eligible institutions may choose to move among the Standard, Open and AQIP Pathways only upon completion of an institution’s current cycle. Completion of the cycle is defined as reaffirmation of accreditation in Year 10 of the Open or Standard Pathway or Year 8 of the proposed AQIP Pathway. An institution that is eligible to choose among pathways will be given 90 days to make that election for its next reaffirmation cycle. After that, the institution must complete the cycle on the pathway it has elected. As delineated in policy, the Commission may for good cause at any time require that an institution move from the Open or AQIP Pathway to the Standard Pathway. In that event, the institution’s date of reaffirmation of accreditation will be set so as to ensure that it falls no later than ten years after its previous reaffirmation. If the institution is placed on Probation or under a Show-Cause order, it is removed from any pathway and placed on a cycle specific to the situation that led to the action. The Commission’s Board of Trustees will determine the appropriate placement on the Standard Pathway when acting on removal of Probation or Show-Cause.

I

C

peaQ

Those with reaffirmation scheduled in 2013-14 or 2014-15 will complete the PEAQ cycle. Upon reaffirmation, the Commission will determine whether the institution should be placed on the Standard Pathway or may choose its preferred pathway—Standard, Open or AQIP. The factors determining pathway eligibility and placement are identified on the Commission’s website at hlcommission.org.

p

For more information about each pathway, review the following Commission policies at policy.hlcommission.org.

Substantive Requirements for Reaffirmation of Accreditation - Policy number INST.C.10.010 Process Requirements for Each Pathway - Policy number INST.C.10.020

p

athways

for

r

eaffIrmatIon

of

a

CCredItatIon

s

tandard

P

athway

o

verview

The Standard Pathway is one of three options institutions have for maintaining accreditation with the Commission. Both quality assurance and quality improvement are integrated into comprehensive evaluations conducted in the Standard Pathway. In addition, the institution addresses quality assurance and improvement through interim monitoring, as required.

p

The Standard Pathway follows a 10-year cycle that includes the following institutional reviews:

• Institutions submit annual Institutional Updates, which are reviewed by the Commission to monitor organizational health, comply with certain federal requirements, and identify any changes that may require Commission follow up. • Two comprehensive evaluations take place in the 10-year Standard Pathway accreditation cycle—one in Year 4

and one in Year 10. The comprehensive evaluation includes the Assurance Review, a review of federal compliance requirements, and a site visit. Both assurance and improvement are directly related to the Criteria for Accreditation. A team of peer reviewers will conduct the comprehensive evaluations.

• The Year 10 comprehensive evaluation results in a determination of reaffirmation of accreditation. Most Year 4 reviews will not make a determination on reaffirmation, but determine if follow-up monitoring is necessary. In most cases, the Institutional Actions Council takes official action on reaffirmation in Year 10.

• An institution undergoing the first comprehensive evaluation after being granted initial accreditation or being removed from Probation will be considered for reaffirmation of accreditation in Year 4. If reaffirmation of accreditation is granted in Year 4, the institution moves to Year 5 on the Standard Pathway cycle.

o

Pen

P

athway

o

verview

The Open Pathway is one of three options institutions have for maintaining accreditation with the Commission. Like the other pathways, the Open Pathway is focused on quality assurance and institutional improvement. It is unique in that its improvement component is more open, giving institutions the independence to pursue improvement projects that are geared toward their current needs and aspirations.

p

The Open Pathway follows a 10-year cycle that includes the following institutional reviews:

• Institutions submit annual Institutional Updates, which are reviewed by the Commission to monitor organizational health, comply with certain federal requirements, and identify any changes that may require Commission follow up. • In Year 4, institutions complete Assurance Reviews to ensure they are continuing to meet the Commission’s

Criteria for Accreditation. The institution provides documentation demonstrating how it fulfills each Criterion and Core Component. A peer review team electronically evaluates these materials and recommends whether the institution should continue in the cycle or whether additional monitoring is required. This information is sent to the Commission’s Institutional Actions Council, which reviews and takes official action on the recommendation. The Year 4 Review may also include a site visit by the peer review team.

m

C

s

p

t

-y

C

To create a chart for a specific institution, enter the date of the institution’

s next reaffirmation of accreditation in the

Year 10 column.

Then enter each preceding year

in the previous columns. Use academic years. Institutions that have already transitioned to the Standard Pathway may have a modified timeline to accommodate the transition. Maps for specific years are available on the Commission website at hlcommission.or

g. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Enter Y ears Institutional Activities

Submit interim reports and under

go visits if required

Assurance Filing (Assurance Ar

gument and

Evidence File);

Federal Compliance Requirements

1

Submit interim reports and under

go visits if required

Assurance Filing (Assurance Ar

gument and

Evidence File);

Federal Compliance Requirements

1

Peer

Review

Review interim reports and conduct visits if required Assurance Review _{and Comprehensive} Evaluation (with

visit)

Review interim reports and conduct

visits if required

Assurance Review _{and Comprehensive} Evaluation (with

visit)

Commission Decision Making

Action on interim reports and visits if required

Action on

Comprehensive Evaluation

2

Action on interim reports and visits if required

Action on

Comprehensive Evaluation and _{Reaffirmation of} Accreditation

3

1 Some institutions will also file materials for multi-campus review

.

2 Institutions under

going the first comprehensive evaluation following

granting of initial accreditation or removal of Probation will be considered for reaffirmation of accreditation as part

of the

Year 4 comprehensive evaluation.

A

change of pathway is not an outcome of the

Year 4 review

.

3 Y

ear 10 includes Commission action regarding reaffirmation of accre

ditation.

Acti

on on the

Year 10 review will also determine the institution’

s future pathway eligibility

m

C

o

p

t

-y

C

This chart outlines the cycle for the major components of the Open Pathway—Assurance and Improvement.

The chart does not reflect any monitoring that may be

required by some component of the

Assurance Review

, by Commission policy

, or by institutional change requests.

To create a chart for a specific institution, enter

the date of the institution’

s next reaffirmation of accreditation in the

Year 10 column, then enter each preceding year in the previous columns. Use academic years.

Institutions that have already transitioned to the Open Pathway may have a modified timeline to accommodate the transition. Maps for specific years are available on the Commission website at hlcommission.or

g. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Enter Y ears Assurance Process

Institution may contribute _{documents to Evidence File} Assurance Filing (Assurance Ar

gument and

Evidence File)

1

Institution may contribute _{documents to Evidence File} Assurance Filing (Assurance Ar

gument and Evidence

File); Federal Compliance

Requirements

1

Assurance Review

(no visit

2)

Assurance Review and

Comprehensive Evaluation

(with visit)

Impr

ovement:

The Quality Initiative

Quality Initiative Proposal Filed

(window of opportunity

to submit)

Quality Initiative _{Proposal Reviewed}

Quality Initiative Report Filed Quality Initiative Report

Reviewed

Commission Decision- Making

Action to

Accept

Assurance Review

3

Action on Comprehensive

Evaluation and Reaffirmation of

Accreditation

4

Other Monitoring

The Commission will continue to review data submitted by affiliated institutions through the Institutional Update, will apply change processes as appropriate to planned institutional developments, and will monitor institutions through reports, visits, and other means as it deems appropriate.

1 Some institutions will also file materials for multi-campus re

view

2 T

eam may require a visit to explore uncertainties in evidence that cannot be resolved at a distance

3 Certain team recommendations may require IAC action 4 Y

ear 10 includes Commission action regarding reaffirmation of accre

ditation.

Action on the

Year 10 review will also determine the institution’

s future pathway eligibility

to meet its current needs or aspirations. Before starting a Quality Initiative, the institution submits a project proposal to be reviewed and approved by peer reviewers. At the end of the Quality Initiative (no later than Year 9), the institution submits a report on its outcomes. Peer reviewers evaluate the report and make a recommendation as to whether the institution made a genuine effort to achieve the goals of the Quality Initiative. This recommendation is included in the materials sent to the Institutional Actions Council for the institution’s Year 10 comprehensive evaluation.

• In Year 10, institutions undergo a comprehensive evaluation, conducted by a team of peer reviewers. The

comprehensive evaluation includes an Assurance Review, a review of federal compliance requirements, and a site visit. The peer review team evaluates each component and makes a recommendation as to whether the institution’s accreditation should be reaffirmed. The Institutional Actions Council reviews the materials and the peer review team’s recommendation, takes action regarding the institution’s reaffirmation, and determines its future pathway eligibility.

aQiP P

athway

: U

Pdates

The AQIP Pathway is one of three options institutions have for maintaining accreditation with the Commission. Like the other pathways, the AQIP Pathway is focused on quality assurance and institutional improvement. AQIP is unique in that it is premised on principles of continuous quality improvement, and its various processes and requirements are designed to assist institutions in achieving quality improvement, along with reaffirming the institution’s accredited status with the Commission once every AQIP cycle.

p

8-y

m

aQIp p

The Commission proposes to alter the accreditation cycle for institutions on the AQIP Pathway to an 8-Year review cycle and eliminate the current 7-Year review cycle. The 8-Year cycle will allow for symmetry and predictability related to AQIP Pathway requirements.

The proposed model eliminates the Reaffirmation Panel, replaces the Quality Checkup Visit with the Comprehensive Quality Review and continues other elements of the AQIP Pathway while updating each and implementing a clearer alignment between them. The names of some of the components have changed slightly. The Commission has two design teams made up of experienced AQIP colleagues redesigning the Strategy Forum and Systems Portfolio/Appraisal. The updated AQIP Pathway will begin implementation in the Fall 2014.

Each institution currently in the AQIP Pathway will receive a personalized 8-Year cycle in summer of 2014 detailing when and how the institution will transition to the new 8-Year cycle.

p

p

C

a

aQIp p

The Board approved on first reading the proposed revised policies related to the AQIP Pathway. The policies may be found on the Commission website at hlcommission.org. The Commission invites comments on these proposed policies before the Board takes final action in June 2014. Comments can be sent to [email protected]. Comments must be received by May 16, 2014.

p

a

QI

p

p

m

Response (See 1.1 on page 7)

X X X X X X X X Strategy Forum

One Strategy Forum in

Year 1 or 2

(see 2.1 on page 7)

Select

Year for

next Strategy Forum

One Strategy Forum in

Year 5 or 6

(see 2.2 on page 7)

Select

Year for next

Strategy Forum

Systems Portfolio and Systems Appraisal

X

(see 3.1 on page 7)

X

(see 3.2 on page 7)

Federal Compliance Review

X (see 4.1 on page 7) Compr ehensive Quality Review Possible

Comprehensive Quality Review _{(see 5.1 on page 7)}

Comprehensive

Quality Review with _{final review of Criteria} for

Accreditation

(see 5.2 on page 7)

Commission Action

Reaffirmation of Accreditation _{(see 6.1 on page 7)}

Other

Monitoring

ProPosed aQiP Pathway Model notes

1. Action Projects Filing and Action Projects Response

1.1. AQIP institutions will continue to maintain at least three Action Projects during each year of the 8-Year Cycle. The institutions will submit an Action Projects Filing annually and will receive response comments subsequent to these filings through the Action Projects Response. This process will mirror the current Annual Update process but the terminology has been modified.

2. Strategy Forum

2.1. All new AQIP institutions will participate in their first Strategy Forum in Chicago during their first spring. The first Strategy Forum in an institution’s second and subsequent AQIP cycles may be completed in Chicago or may be campus-based. The latter will be structured around a college-wide conversation pulling together the components of all that has been learned, accomplished, or in need of further improvement during the preceding cycle. During the second and subsequent AQIP cycles, the first Strategy Forum may be completed in either Year 1 or Year 2. 2.2. The second Strategy Forum in the AQIP cycle will be Chicago-based and may be completed in either Year 5 or Year 6.

3. Systems Portfolio and Systems Appraisal

3.1. The Systems Portfolio will provide evidence on how the institution plans, implements, reports, and utilizes data for the AQIP Categories. This Systems Portfolio will focus on the AQIP Categories and will also include evidence related to the Criteria for Accreditation for purposes of a “soft review” of the Criteria and Core Components during the Systems Appraisal.

3.2. The Systems Portfolio will provide matured evidence on how the institution plans, implements, reports, and utilizes data for the AQIP Categories. The Appraisal will verify continuing improvements in relation to the AQIP Categories and will also provide an intensive screening of the Criteria for Accreditation and the Core Components. This screening occurs a year prior to the Comprehensive Quality Review in Year 8. 4. Review of Federal Compliance Documentation

4.1. A review of the institution’s federal compliance documentation will help inform the Comprehensive Quality Review team regarding verification of compliance or the need for further review during the Comprehensive Quality Review visit in Year 8.

5. Comprehensive Quality Review (Note: Comprehensive Quality Review is a visit and replaces the Quality Checkup Visit)

5.1. This Comprehensive Quality Review visit will occur only if significant concerns arise during the prior Year-8 review, or from the Systems Portfolio and Appraisal processes in Year 3, or upon institutional request or Commission staff determination.

5.2. The Comprehensive Quality Review visit team will engage the institution in discussions about its Action Projects, initiatives featured in the Systems Portfolio, and strategies designed through the Strategy Forums. This team will also review results from any concerns or issues raised by the Systems Appraisal team in Year 7, particularly in relation to Criteria for Accreditation and Core Components. This visit may handle, as appropriate, a review of multi-campuses and distance education, as well as federal compliance documentation.

6. Reaffirmation of Accreditation

6.1. The final report of the Comprehensive Quality Review visit team and the documentation that informs that report (e.g., past Systems Portfolios and Appraisals, Action Projects Filing/Action Projects Response information, federal compliance documentation, etc.) will serve as the basis for reaffirming the institution’s accreditation through the Institutional Actions Council (IAC). This proposed cycle eliminates the need for the Reaffirmation Panel.

p

r

a

*

Pathways for Maintaining Accreditation

STANDARD PATHWAY OPEN PATHWAY AQIP PATHWAY

Who Participates • Institutions that choose this

pathway

• Institutions granted initial accreditation through the first ten years

• Institutions that are not eligible to choose other pathways

Institutions eligible to choose this pathway

Institutions eligible to choose this pathway

How Pathway Assures Compliance with Criteria, Federal Requirements, Other Commission Policies

Institutional Update Filing and Analysis • Ten-year cycle

• Comprehensive Evaluation with visit in Years 4 and 10

• Ten-year cycle • Assurance Review in

Year 4, Comprehensive Evaluation with visit in Year 10

• Eight-year cycle • Systems Appraisals in

Year 3 and Year 7 and Comprehensive Quality Review with visit in Year 8 • May require interim

reports and focused visits • Follows Commission

policies and practices on institutional change

• May require interim reports

• Follows Commission policies and practices on institutional change

• May require interim reports

• Follows Commission policies and practices on institutional change

How Pathway Encourages Improvement

Improvement is aligned with Assurance Argument

• Quality Initiative between Years 5-9

Improvement-focused Action Projects and Strategy Forums

Role of Peer

Reviewers Corps of trained and experienced professionals serve as peer reviewers and decision-makers in these processes

* Institutions on Probation or under Show-Cause order are on a separate, heightened level of monitoring by the Commission and are not on any pathway.

More information about:

• Standard, Open and AQIP Pathways • Assurance System

• Quality Initiative • Federal Compliance