Round 2 and counting! Please follow the new graphic in the right margin, indicating where the Assurance Argument is at any point in time. You can track the Argument all the way to lockdown (submission to the Higher Learning Commission) next summer. We’ve just finished Review Round #1 and are currently preparing for Round #2, starting tomorrow.
Arduously through the summer and furiously through September, the Steering Committee sub-committees wrote, collected evidence, and reviewed their respective Criteria Arguments. All was due on September 30, and each sub-committee triumphantly delivered on time. It was a great day for us and I want to give a special shout out to each sub-committee member for his/her contribution to this major milestone. We now have a first draft of 32,478 words in 103 pages. Our word limit is 35,000 words, so we are close; however, over the course of 8 more rounds of review, we expect the draft to become more and more refined until it is exactly what we want it to express.
Kudos to Bob Parr, Chair of Criterion #1: Mission, and his team members, Zach Bowden, Brian Burns, Greg Dyson, Jason Lee, and Bruce Traeger. Their Argument fully explores the essentials of the CU Mission Statement and all of its various manifestations throughout the CU Website and in CU publications. It includes the relationship of the Mission to the diversity of society and an education for the public good.
Thanks to John Davis, Chair of Criterion #2: Integrity, and his team members, Wes Baker, Mark Biddinger, Peggy Grigorenko, Roscoe Smith, Jim Phipps, Mark Caleb Smith, and April Crommett. Their Argument is built on the University policy that states that CU “is committed to the highest ethical standards possible. The expectation of the Community is the the University will conduct business efficiently, competently, and ethically.”
Congrats to Mark McClain, Chair, and Jeremy Kimble, Co-chair of Criterion #3: Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources, and Support, and their team composed of Sharon Christman, Tim Tuinstra, Lindsey McCarty, Kim Ahlgrim, and Ruth Markham. Their Argument covers a wide spectrum of types of course delivery including traditional, online, condensed, and hybrid. They must prove that CU provides the same level of quality instruction no matter what the delivery. Their Argument furthermore examines the spectrum of high school College Now offerings through Masters and doctorate level programs.
Hats off to Melissa Faulkner, Chair, and Nick Carrington, Co-chair of Criterion #4: Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement, and their team of Beth Porter, Steve Winteregg, Phil Schanely, Jeff Evans, and Karisa Linafelter. They had the task of explaining in detail and with great clarity the development of our assessment processes. Along with Criterion #3, this Argument examines the heart of our institution, Academics.
A final shout out to Jeff Reep, Chair, and Lynn Brock, Co-chair of Criterion #5: Resources, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness, and their team members Phil Grafton, John Hart, Robert Vaughn, Rod Johnson, and Teresa Clark. Their Argument shows how Cedarville University sustains itself financially by wise management of its resources, finances, and strategic planning for the future.
Review Round #2 takes us all the way to Thanksgiving through a series of 2-hour weekly sessions for the Steering Committee to comb through the first draft line by line and come to consensus on each Criteria. We’ll be revising, adding, re-ordering, and examining the evidence during these sessions. Please pray for clarity, wisdom, and unity as we go through this important Round together.
Posted in: Uncategorized