Criterion 1: Mission and Integrity
Criterion 2: Preparing for the Future
Criterion 3: Student Learning and Effective Teaching
Criterion 4: Acquisition, Discovery and Application of Knowledge
Criterion 5: Engagement and Service
Criteria and Other Recommendations
Special Emphasis: International Initiatives
Dieter Wanner; All Team Members
Meetings, People and Locations
The schedule of Meetings, People and Locations is below. With very few exceptions, meetings are in the Michigan League.
On the days of the visit, a continuously-staffed central command post will be located at the Michigan Room of the Michigan League, with schedules, name tags, room info, some refreshments, and support staff (Elias Samuels, Denise Newton, Glenda Haskell and me).
For each meeting, check-in at the Michigan Room, where you will find your name tag and we can answer any last-minute questions. The meetings run on a tight schedule, starting on the hour (daylight savings time starts on Sunday!), so leave enough time to reach your meeting room.
Open Meetings for Faculty, Students and Staff
Monday, March 15, 4-4:50 pm
Michigan League floorplan: http://uunions.umich.edu/league/meeting/room/
Self-study Structure and Accreditation Criteria
Self-study Structure and Accreditation Criteria
FAQ about Accreditation
Q. What is accreditation?
Q. What is the value of accreditation?
Q. How is accreditation handled in the United States?
Institutional accreditation is provided by regional and national associations of schools and colleges. There are six regional associations, each named after the region in which it operates (Middle States, New England, North Central, Northwest, Southern, Western). The regional associations are independent of one another, but they cooperate extensively and acknowledge one another’s accreditations. Several national associations focus on particular kinds of institutions (for example, trade and technical colleges, and religious colleges and universities).
An institutional accrediting agency evaluates an entire educational organization in terms of its mission and the agency’s standards or criteria. It accredits the organization as a whole. Besides assessing formal educational activities, it evaluates such things as governance and administration, financial stability, admissions and student services, institutional resources, student learning, institutional effectiveness, and relationships with internal and external constituencies.
This accreditation structure, in which non-governmental agencies accredit institutions of higher education, is a voluntary process that was established first in the U.S. The accreditation process has two primary goals—to ensure the quality of institutions of higher education and to promote improvement.
Q. What is the difference between institutional accreditation and program accreditation?
Q. Who evaluates the evaluators—in our case the Higher Learning Commission?
To appear on the list, an accrediting body must demonstrate its compliance with regulations established in accordance with the Higher Education Act. The Secretary of Education reviews the status of accrediting bodies on the list on a regular schedule. The Commission has been listed by the Secretary of Education (or a predecessor officer) since 1952, when the list was first published. Its most recent renewal of recognition was in 2007.
Amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1992 created the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), a Committee composed of 15 members appointed by the Secretary of Education. The primary function of this group is to advise the Secretary of Education with regard to accrediting agencies for the purpose of determining higher education institutions’ eligibility for programs administered through the Higher Education Act.
Members of NACIQI include representatives of, or knowledgeable concerning, education and training beyond secondary education, including representatives of all sectors and type of institutions of higher education, as well as a student representative. CHEA and USDE recognition processes evaluate the effectiveness of each accrediting body’s ongoing self-evaluation program.
Q. What sort of governing structure does the Higher Learning Commission and the other regional accrediting agencies have in place?
The Commission evaluates its processes in a variety of ways. Participants provide routine evaluation of accreditation processes. Consultant-evaluators and organizations evaluate team performance. Organizations and others respond to surveys on the quality of programs and services. Focus groups and task forces address specific issues and challenges. Stakeholders share comments through Commission feedback opportunities.
Q: How many institutions are under the purview of the Higher Learning Commission, and what types of institutions?
Q: By what process is the University of Michigan accredited as an institution?
Q: How often is the University of Michigan reviewed for accreditation?
Q: Who decides the composition of the review team?
Although the HLC makes the final decision about review team composition, institutions as complex as the University of Michigan typically make suggestions for possible review team members and advocate for the appointment of educators to the team who have the experience and knowledge to allow them to critique the University’s broad and complex activities.
Q. Are there any provisions afforded to institutions like the University to make the exercise of reaccreditation review as meaningful an exercise as possible?
The U-M obtains Commission authorization to focus in-depth attention on a select group of issues critical to its pursuit of continuous improvement and educational excellence. In addition to the SES, the University must also provide evidence that it fulfills the Criteria for Accreditation and reports on agreed-upon strategies and efforts it will use in pursuing ongoing organizational improvement. The Commission sends an evaluation team to the organization not only to address assurance issues associated with accreditation review but also to spend considerable time in a consultative role related to the previously agreed-upon special emphasis focus.
Q. What is the Special Emphasis Study for the 2010 re-accreditation review?
Q. When is the campus visit of the HLC review team?
Various sources, including “Institutional Accreditation: An Overview,” by the Higher Learning Commission; available at http://www.ncahlc.org/download/Overview07.pdf.