burton

HLC Site Visit

HLC Team

Membership

Last
First
Title
Affiliation
Fernández Celestino Professor of Sociology, Team Chair University of Arizona
Bousquet Gilles Dean of International Studies & Director of the International Institute University of Wisconsin-Madison
Clasen Mark Professor & Chair, Department of Family Medicine Wright State University
Franz Lori Professor of Management University of Missouri-Columbia
Gilstrap Donald Associate Dean of Libraries University of Oklahoma
Nolan Riall Professor of Anthropology, Associate Provost & Dean of International Programs Purdue University
Priest Douglas Senior Associate Vice President, Finance Indiana University Bloomington
Sullivan Thomas Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs & Provost University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
Tanner Michael Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs University of Illinois at Chicago
Twombly Susan Professor & Chair, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies University of Kansas
Venugopalan Dev Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Wanner Dieter Associate Provost for Global Strategies and International Affairs Ohio State University
Whitney Karen Vice Chancellor For Student Life Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis

Team assignments

Assurance Section

Criterion 1: Mission and Integrity
Celestino Fernández; R. Michael Tanner

Criterion 2: Preparing for the Future
Douglas M. Priest; E. Thomas Sullivan

Criterion 3: Student Learning and Effective Teaching
Mark E. Clasen; Donald Gilstrap; Susan B. Twombly

Criterion 4: Acquisition, Discovery and Application of Knowledge
Lori S. Franz; Riall Nolan; Dev Venugopalan

Criterion 5: Engagement and Service
Karen M, Whitney; Gilles Bousquet

Advancement Section

Criteria and Other Recommendations
All Team Members

Special Emphasis: International Initiatives

Dieter Wanner; All Team Members

Schedule

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
Faculty: Koessler Room, Michigan League (3rd floor)
Students: Vandenberg Room, Michigan League (2nd floor)
Staff: Henderson Room, Michigan League (3rd floor)

Michigan League floorplan: http://uunions.umich.edu/league/meeting/room/

floorplan

Meeting/Session Topic
Crit.
Day
Time
All Attendees
Location
1- Leadership: Academic Affairs
M
Mon
9
1-, Teresa Sullivan, Christina Whitman, John King 
1- Room 2
2- Health System
M
Mon
10
2-, Ora Pescovitz, Anthony Denton? , John Billi
2- Room 2
3- Faculty Governance (Senate Assembly)
M
Mon
11
3-Michael Thouless, , John Lehman, Gina Poe, Mojtaba Navvab, Robert Fraser
3- Room 2
4- Lunch with Regents
M
Mon
12-1
4-, Andrew Richner, Olivia Maynard, Julia Darlow? , 
4- Room D
5- Budget, Planning and Institutional Research
M
Tue
9
5-Philip Hanlon, Kathleen Potempa, , Lori Haskins, Ruth Kallio 
5- Room 2
6- Serving a Diverse Campus 
M
Mon
3
6-Lester Monts, Abigail Stewart, , Cinda-Sue Davis, John Matlock, Richard Lichtenstein, Gloria Thomas, Jackie Simpson
6- Room A
7- Intercollegiate Athletics
M
Mon
2
7-Bill Martin, David Brandon?, , Philip Hughes, Shari Acho,  Elizabeth Ritt,  Mike Bottom 
7- Room 2
8- Student Services: Admissions, Financial Aid, and Registrar
M
Tue
10
8-Theodore Spencer, Paul Robinson, , Erica Sanders, Susan Perreault, Steven Gay, Pamela Fowler
8- Room 2
9- Ombuds and Dispute Resolution 
M
Tue
11
9-Thomas Lehker, Michael Welsh, , Jeff Frumkin, Dawn Marshall
9- Room 2
10- Lunch with incoming Provost Hanlon
M/F
Tue
12-1
10-, Philip Hanlon, 
10- Room A
11- Staff
M/F
Tue
2
11-Peggy Westrick, Ruth Freedman, , Katrina Ward Hope, Timothy Kennedy, William Canning, Mary Ceccanese
11- Room 2
12- Audits and Compliance    
M
Tue
3
12-Carol Senneff, Jeanne Strickland , , Paul Millis, Lorraine Currie, Brent Haase
12- Room 2
13- Self-study Coordinator (Optional)
M
Tue
4
13-Ben van der Pluijm, , Glenda Haskell
13 - Michigan Room
14- Leadership: Finance
F
Mon
9
14-, Tim Slottow, Erik Lundberg, Rowan Miranda
14- Room 4
15- General Council and Communications
F
Mon
10
15-, David Lampe, Suellyn Scarnecchia, 
15- Room 4
16- People and Places
F
Mon
11
16-Laurita Thomas, Susan Gott, , Timothy Wood, Frances Mueller
16- Room 4
17- Development
F/I
Mon
3
17-Jefferson Porter, , Martha Luckham, Brodie Remington, Yoon Choi, Isaiah Montgomery
17- Room B
18- North Campus Research Complex (new campus)
F
Mon
2
18-Jim Woolliscroft, , Steve Kunkel, Teri Grieb, Mark Burns, Charlotte Mistretta
18- Room 4
19- Associate/Assistant Deans (VPADG)
F
Tue
10
19-Patricia Van Volkinburg, Myron Campbell, , Margaret Gyetko, Mary Schmidt, Daniel Washington
19- Room 4
20- Unit Assessment and Program Review
F
Tue
11
20-Dennis Lopatin, Rick Francis, , Bonnie Hagerty, Shelly Martinez
20- Room 4
21- Ethics/Responsibility/CoI
F/K
Tue
3
21-Judith Nowack, John Chamberlin, , Ray Hutchinson, Evan Caminker
21- Room 4
22- Leadership: Learning
L
Mon
9
22-, David Munson, Deborah Ball, Terrence McDonald, 
22- Koessler
23- Teaching Support
L
Mon
10
23-Connie Cook, , Cynthia Finelli, Crisca Bierwert, Erping Zhu, James Penner-Hahn, Susan Collins
23- Koessler
24- General Education
L
Mon
11
24-Bob Megginson, James Holloway, , Brad Orr, Gregory Hulbert, Michael Wellmann
24- Koessler
25- Lunch with Business and Community Representatives
L/K
Mon
12-1
25-, Ellen Clement, Cheryl Elliot, Michael Finney, Todd Roberts, Sandra Rupp, Greg Stephens, 
25- Room A
26- Interdisciplinarity Initiative
L
Mon
2
26-Peggy McCracken, Steven Ceccio, , Sidonie Smith, Toni Antonucci, Paul Conway, Catherine Shaw, Stephanie Riegle
26- Room C
27- Student Advising and Careers 
L
Mon
3
27-Esrold Nurse, Mercedes Barcia, , Timothy Dodd, Kelsey Gross, Susan Montgomery, Liese Hull, Kerin Borland
27- Room C
28- Teaching Innovations
L
Tue
9
28-John King, , Perry Samson, Rachel Perlman, Simone Himbeault-Taylor, Anne Gwozdek, Larry Gruppen
28- Koessler
29- Learning AWG
L
Tue
10
29-Richard Tolman, Deborah Goldberg, Rajesh Mangrulkar, Perry Samson, 
29- Koessler
30- Housing and Residential Life 
L
Tue
11
30-Linda Newman, , Christine Siegel, Greg Merritt, Tomas Baiza
30- Koessler
31- Lunch with AWG chairs
L/K
Tue
12-1
31-, Margaret Dewar, John Greisberger, June Howard, Mark Tessler, Richard Tolman, , 
31- Room C
32- Student Leaders 
L/K
Tue
2
32-, Abhishek Mahanti, Michael Rorro, Dara Fisher, Aristo Chang?;  Christine Schepeler, Jeff Wojcik, Adam Cole, Michael Benson, 
32- Room D
33- Learning Assessment 
L
Tue
3
33-Jeanne Murabito, Susan Juster, , Matthew Kaplan, Anne Gere, August Evrard, Gregory Hulbert, Anne Curzan
33- Koessler
34- Learning Communities
L/E
Tue
4
34-David Schoem, , Charlie Bright, Tim McKay, Carol Tell, Wendy Woods
34- Room C
35- Leadership: Knowledge
K
Mon
9
35-, Stephen Forrest, Janet Weiss, 
35- Henderson
36- Faculty Governance (AAAC)
K
Mon
10
36-David Dowling, , William Schultz, Stanley Berent, Lincoln Faller, Elizabeth Moje, Charles Smith, Arthur Verhoogt, John Lin, Sahib Singh
36- Henderson
37- Information Technology
K
Mon
11
37-Laura Patterson, Dan Atkins, , John Williams, Paul Killey,  Jocelyn Dewitt
37- Henderson
38- Libraries
K
Mon
2
38-, , John Wilkin, Barbara MacAdam, Fran Blouin, Bryan Skib, Joseph Fantone
38- Room D
39- Student Research
K
Mon
3
39-Sandra Gregerman, , Gale Amyx, Bruno Giordani, Susan Brown, Allen Hicken, Theresa Lee, Mark Clague,
39- Room D
40- Research and Tech Transfer
K
Tue
9
40-Marvin Parnes, Kenneth Nisbet, , Elaine Brock, Rick Brandon
40- Henderson
41- Knowledge AWG
K
Tue
10
41-June Howard, Mark Burns, Juan Cole, Scott Page, James Shayman, , 
41- Henderson
42- Creative Fields
K
Tue
11
42-, Monica Ponce de Leon, Bryan Rogers, Christopher Kendall   , 
42- Henderson
43- Leadership: Engagement
E
Mon
9
43-, Royster Harper, Cynthia Wilbanks, 
43- Room A
44- Division of Student Affairs
E
Mon
10
44-Simone Himbeault-Taylor, Laura Jones, , Loren Rullman, Anjali Anturkar, Malinda Matney,
44- Room A
45- Service Learning
E
Mon
11
45-Margi Dewar, , Lorelle Meadows,  Janie Paul, Richard Redman, Theresa Cuisamo, Laura Lein, Kimberly Thomas
45- Room A
46- Lunch with Government Representatives
E/I
Mon
12-1
46-, Tony Derezinski, Bob Guenzel, Liz Brater, 
46- Room C
47- Public Goods Council
E
Tue
3
47-Amy Harris, , Kevin Graffagnino, Ken Fischer, Carla Sinopoli
47- Room A
48- Alumni Association
E
Mon
2
48-Steve Grafton, , David Schueler, Jo Rumsey, Kirk Lutz, Sharon Morioka
48- Room A
49- Institutes
E
Tue
9
49-James Jackson, , Alan Saltiel, Donald Scavia, Dennis Assanis
49- Room A
50- Engagement AWG
E
Tue
10
50-Margaret Dewar , Julie Ellison, Tony England, Barbara Israel, Thomas Kinnear, Richard Redman, Alford Young,, 
50- Room A
51- Student Organizations
E
Tue
11
51-Susan Wilson, , Anuj Lal, Andrew Dalack, Mei Ling Liu, Tashween Ali, Aisha Myshelle Harris, Michael Friedman
51- Room A
52- Lunch with Michigan Society of Fellows
E/I
Tue
12-1
52-Don Lopez, , Claudia Brittenham, Evan Economo, Cecile Fromont,  Zeynep Gursel, Manja Holland, Tung-Hui Hu,  Miranda Johnson,  Jeffrey Knight, Elise Lipkowitz, Sara McClelland, Benjamin Paloff, Elena Rasia, Christopher Skeaff, Carrie Booth Walling
52- Room D
53- Educational/Governmental Outreach
E
Tue
2
53-William Collins, Jim Kosteva, , Dana Sitzler, Mary Beth Damm, Kira Berman, Laura Roop
53- Room A
54- Leadership: Internationalization
I
Mon
9
54-, Mark Tessler, Bryan Rodgers, 
54- Room B
55- China Task Force
I
Mon
10
55-Gary Krenz, , Mary Gallagher, Linda Lim, Lester Monts
55- Room B
56- Study Abroad
I
Mon
11
56-AT Miller, Amy Conger, , William Nolting, Kate Durand, Sandra Wiley, Leslie Davis 
56- Room B
57- Global Initiatives (Health)
I
Mon
2
57-Joe Kolars, Frank Ascione, , Mark Wilson, Tim Johnson, Sofia Merajver, Kathleen Sienko
57- Room B
58- International Institute and other programs
I
Tue
9
58-Ken Kollman, , Jan Svejnar?, Amy Kehoe, Douglas Northrup, Don Lopez
58- Room B
59- Internationalization-Organization AWG
I
Tue
10
59-John Greisberger, Amy Conger, Amy Kehoe, Joseph Trumpey, Evans Young, 
59- Room B
60- Internationalization-Academics AWG
I
Tue
11
60-Mark Tessler, Alan Deardorff, Mary Gallagher, James Holloway, Peggy McCracken, Rachel Snow, 
60- Room B
61, Rackham Graduate school Internationalization
I
Tue
2
61-John Godfrey, , Jack Hu, Twila Tardif, Alford Young
61- Room B
62- Opening Meeting
All
Mon
8
62-, Teresa Sullivan, Ora Pescovitz, Tim Slottow, EOs, VPs, Deans
62- Michigan
63- Open Meeting with Faculty
Mon
4
63-, N/A, 
63- Koessler
64- Open Meeting with Staff
Mon
4
64-, N/A, 
64- Henderson
65- Open Meeting with Students
Mon
4
65-, N/A, 
65- Vandenberg
66- Exit Meeting
All
Wed
8:30
66-, Mary Sue Coleman, Teresa Sullivan, EOs, VPs, Deans
66- Michigan
67- Private Reporting (with CF)
All
Wed
8
67-, Mary Sue Coleman, Teresa Sullivan, 
67- Room C
68- Breakfast with President Coleman
All
Tue
7:45
68-Mary Sue Coleman, , Teresa Sullivan, Ben van der Pluijm
68- President's House
A- U-M Reception
All
Sun
6-8
A-All Anchors, All Designates, 
A- Museum of Art
B- Organizational Meeting (with CF)
Sun
3
B-Ben van der Pluijm, Glenda Haskell, , 
B- Michigan

Self-study Structure and Accreditation Criteria

Self-study Structure and Accreditation Criteria

Overview.
Mission.  Criterion One: Mission and Integrity.
The organization operates with integrity to ensure the fulfillment of its mission through structures and processes that involve the board, administration, faculty, staff and students.
Future.  Criterion Two: Preparing for the Future.
The organization’s allocation of resources and its processes for evaluation and planning demonstrate its capacity to fulfill its mission, improve the quality of its education, and respond to future challenges and opportunities.
Learning.  Criterion Three: Student Learning and Effective Teaching.
The organization provides evidence of student learning and teaching effectiveness that demonstrates it is fulfilling its educational mission.
Knowledge.  Criterion Four: Acquisition, Discovery and Application of Knowledge.
The organization promotes a life of learning for its faculty, administration, staff, and students by fostering and supporting inquiry, creativity, practice and social responsibility in ways consistent with its mission.
Engagement.  Criterion Five: Engagement and Service.
As called for by its mission, the organization identifies its constituencies and serves them in ways both value.
Internationalization.  Special-emphasis Study.
ResourcesSupporting and supplementary documents.
(U-M Snapshots)
(Financial Reports)

Q&A

FAQ about Accreditation

Q. What is accreditation?
Accreditation by nationally recognized agencies provides assurance to the public and the federal government that an organization has been found to meet the agency’s articulated requirements and criteria and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it will continue to meet them.

Q. What is the value of accreditation?
Accreditation provides both public certification of acceptable institutional quality and an opportunity and incentive for self-improvement in the accredited organization. The process of accreditation provides the accredited organization with an opportunity for critical self-analysis leading to improvement in quality and for consultation with and advice from persons from other organizations.

Q. How is accreditation handled in the United States?   
In the U.S., schools and colleges voluntarily seek accreditation from nongovernmental bodies.  There are two types of educational accreditation: institutional and specialized.

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?
Institutional accreditation speaks to the overall quality of the organization without making judgments about specific programs. Institutional accreditation is accreditation of all programs, sites, and methods of delivery. The accreditation of individual programs, such as those preparing students to practice a profession, is carried out by specialized or program accrediting bodies that apply specific standards for curriculum and course content. Each specialized accrediting body publishes a list of programs it accredits.

Q. Who evaluates the evaluators—in our case the Higher Learning Commission?
The Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) is a national, non-governmental organization that provides recognition of accrediting bodies. The Commission's CHEA recognition was last confirmed in 2007. In addition, the United States Department of Education maintains a list of accrediting agencies determined to be “reliable authorities as to the quality of training offered by educational institutions and programs.” The list serves as one of the bases for the federal government's determination of institutional eligibility for participation in federally funded programs, including Title IV student financial aid.

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 Higher Learning Commission’s Board of Trustees is the policy-making body of the Commission. Member organizations elect between fifteen and twenty-one Board members. One-seventh are representatives of the public; the rest are from affiliated organizations. The business meetings of the Board of Trustees are open to the public. The Commission posts information about upcoming meetings on its Web site.

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? 
Within the purview of the NCA, the HLC accredits nearly 1,000 degree-granting organizations of higher education.  These institutions cover a ride range with regard to type and size of institution. 

Q: By what process is the University of Michigan accredited as an institution? 
The University of Michigan is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC). The HLC is an independent corporation that holds membership in the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA), one of the six regional agencies mentioned above.

Q: How often is the University of Michigan reviewed for accreditation? 
Every ten years.  The University was most recently accredited in 2000.  The next review is scheduled for March 15 - 17 2010.  The review will be conducted by a review team appointed by the Higher Learning Commission.  

Q: Who decides the composition of the review team?   
More than 1,000 educators from all types of accredited colleges and universities throughout the HLC serve as reviewers in the Commission’s Peer Review Corps.  Members of the Corps have undergone training provided by HLC staff.  It is also possible for educators outside the PRC to serve as reviewers. 

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? 
Yes. The Higher Learning Commission allows institutions like the University of Michigan to engage in a customized accreditation review process. For the past several reviews, the University has engaged in a Special Emphasis Study, which provides the University an opportunity to move beyond the basic mode of self-reflection.

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? 
The SES focus is on internationalization.   Accreditation leadership at the U-M defined the intellectual framework, the parameters, and the structure of this effort.  

Q. When is the campus visit of the HLC review team?
The team visits March 15-17, 2010.

Various sources, including “Institutional Accreditation: An Overview,” by the Higher Learning Commission; available at http://www.ncahlc.org/download/Overview07.pdf

 

umseal