We came; we saw; we conquered. The HLC Steering Committee went to Chicago March 28-31 for the annual HLC Conference, along with nearly 4000 attendees from institutions of higher learning. We saw many things that confirmed that we are well on our way to the reaffirmation of our accreditation, yet at the same time made us realize that we have to keep pressing on in what will turn out to be the continuous work of improving ourselves. Did we conquer? No, not yet, but as a team and a University family, together we will.
The Steering Committee spent a full day together in a workshop tailored to our particular accreditation process, known as Open Pathways. Because this is a new process, all of us needed to be trained in its procedures and expectations. The remaining 2 1/2 days of the conference contained various sessions dealing with both accreditation matters and general practices in higher education. The following are some highlights of the conference that I think are important for all of us to consider.
Writing the Argument
For each of the Core Components of the five Criteria, we need to write a strong, tight argument that proves how we meet or exceed the statement. To do this we must focus on the strongest aspects of Cedarville that support the Core Components. Doing this will require several pieces of clear evidence that support our argument. If we haven’t already done so, we might be calling on your area in the near future to provide us with documents. We recognize, however, that in some areas we may not be as strong as we would like to be. Our argument in these situations will be first, to acknowledge our awareness of the weakness and second, to provide a solution. HLC knows that no institution is perfect and certainly does not require that of Cedarville. What is important is to demonstrate that we have self-identified our shortage and that we are moving forward to correct it. To help with our argument we are planning an intense writing workshop geared specifically to crafting our Assurance Argument. This will be led by our lead technical writer/editor, Nick Carrington.
Evidence
Strong claims should be supported with strong evidence. Evidence is important in order to show transparency and instill confidence that we really are who we claim to be. The reviewers will rely heavily on the evidence we provide in order to make their recommendations to the HLC. To determine the best evidence for our argument, we can learn from the legal world. Black’s Law states that the best evidence is clear evidence: positive, precise, and explicit. It is not ambiguous and does not lead to conjecture or presumption. Corroborating evidence is not as strong as clear evidence: It supports and confirms existing evidence, but may not be able to stand alone. The weakest is circumstantial evidence, which requires inference and suggests a fact based on related circumstances. As much as possible, we want to use clear evidence to support our argument. (taken from handout provided at presentation by Anthea Sweeney, What is Evidence? HLC Conference, 2015)
The “Grading” System
For each Core Component, the reviewers assign one of three “grades.” Met is the highest score, an A. We pass. Met with concern means that the reviewers have some concerns and will recommend some action on our part, in a given amount of time, to remedy the situation. Not met is, shall I say it? An F. We don’t want that, nor do we want a “Met with concern.” If any one Core Component in a Criterion receives either a “Met with concern” or a “Not met,” the entire Criterion receives that score. It doesn’t matter if everything else is a “Met.” Our goal is to have every Core Component receive a score of “Met.” This may not be easy, but we are working towards that goal.
Continuous Improvement
Whether we find ourselves strong or weak in any particular area, we need to cultivate a culture of continuous improvement. This matter is probably the most important change in tone from the last Self-Study. HLC will be looking for an aggressive, vibrant, growing institution that seeks to improve and excel in every area of its operations. This is the Cedarville that I found when I began working here six years ago; I pray that this is how HLC will find us.
Student Survey
Something new to accreditation this time is a Student Satisfaction Survey. This survey will be sent to us from HLC several months before the Site Visit and we will send it out electronically to all students. The results will be examined for any additional information that the Visiting Team may need for their report. They will not be looking for satisfaction with the food in Chuck’s but rather for items that reflect the Criteria. We will be given the results of the survey approximately one month before the visit. Our Assurance Argument by that time will be locked, so we will not be able to use any of that information to revise our document; however, these results will help us prepare for the Visit.
A Living Document
What we prepare now is not just for 2016; it is a living document for the future. Not long after our Site Visit, we will be preparing for our four-year review in 2020. We will NOT be writing a new Argument at this time. We will be updating our existing one. It is in our own best interest to put our best thoughts and efforts into preparing our Assurance Argument today. We will reap the benefits in the future, and we will pave the path for others to pick up where we stop.
Did you know:
The Higher Learning Commission is hard at work to support our accreditation efforts. Their website is full of very helpful information for anyone who is interested in improving the quality of the institution. Here are just a few of items freely posted on their website
- Materials from the HLC Conference, both current and past
- An explanation of how institutions are accredited
- Cedarville University’s profile in the Directory of Institutions
- An overview of Open Pathways, our accreditation protocol
- A complete description of the Criteria for Accreditation
- Assumed Practices that HLC expects of every university
Enjoy!
Posted in: Uncategorized