1. Accreditation
  2. Program Assessment
  3. General Education Assessment
  4. Links
  5. Memberships
  6. State Authorization
  7. Contact Us
  8. 2020 Accreditation Update Blog
  9. HLC Quality Initiative Information
  10. 2007 Self Study Archive
  11. 2020 Assurance Review
  12. 2016 Reaffirmation of Accreditation
  13. 2016 Quality Initiative Report
January 15, 2021

To the University Community:

With a grateful heart to God and to all of you, I am happy to report that Cedarville University has once again successfully passed its Assurance Review. This Review came just 4 years after the Comprehensive Review of 2016.  It was intended to be a mere update of that review, but because so much progress in so many areas happened since 2016, our report was completely rewritten with all new evidence.  This “update” did not include a Site Visit by HLC Peer Reviewers, but only an examination of our written review and accompanying evidence. It also did not include a Federal Compliance Report or a Student Survey. It did, however, require an additional formal COVID-19 Response, with details regarding our plans as far out as 2022!

We submitted our Review on Oct. 22, 2020, which was then carefully reviewed by a team of 5 seasoned HLC Peer Reviewers. We received word on Dec. 7, 2020 that our Review had passed with flying colors. Let me give you a little more detail on what took place in the Review: Each of 18 different Core Components was given 1 of 3 possible scores. The 3 scores we could receive are “Met,” “Met with Concerns,” and “Not Met.”  HLC is very strict with their ratings: if any of the 18 Core Components receives a “Met with Concerns” or “Not Met,” the entire Criterion which had that particular Core Component is also “Met with Concerns” or “Not Met.”  Furthermore, if any of the 5 Criteria is “Met with Concerns” or “Not Met,” the entire Review would not pass.  Therefore, we basically had to get an A+ in every one of the 18 areas.  And thanks to God and to our outstanding Task Team, we did just that. All 18 Core Components received a score of “Met.”

First and foremost, a huge thanks to Dr. Mach, who oversaw our entire project, providing regular guidance with experience and wisdom.  He certainly kept us on track for success.

A huge shout-out to the entire Task Team for countless hours of work in researching, writing, and creating evidence. If you see any of these wonderful folks around campus, please thank them for their selfless service to the University:

Tom Betcher–HLC Liaison; Mandy Nolt–Accreditation Specialist; Julie Deardorff–Archivist; Tara Carraher–Institutional Researcher

Jason Lee–Chair, Criterion 1: Mission; Zach Bowden–Member

John Davis–Chair, Criterion 2: Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct; Dan Howdyshell, Patrick Oliver–Members

Tim Tuinstra–Chair, Criterion 3: Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources, and Support; Jim Amstutz, JR Gilhooly, Adam Hammett–Members

Mark McClain–Chair, Criterion 4: Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement; Lindsey McCarty, Aleda Chen, Aaron Huffman, Michael Sherr–Members

Jeff Reep–Chair, Criterion 5: Institutional Effectiveness, Resources, and Planning; Phil Grafton, John Hart, Rod Johnson–Members

Micah Cooper, Rah Jacob, Brian Burns, Stephanie Zonars, Becky Ferrell–Division Consultants

Finally, a special thanks to all those in the University family that provided excellent reviews of our numerous drafts: Board of Trustees, Dr. White, Dr. Mach, Cabinet, and ALG.  Insightful comments and corrections from these members of the Administration helped improve our report tremendously.

As our work on this project comes to a conclusion, I would like to say how blessed I have been once again to have the opportunity to work with so many outstandingly capable, kind, and God-honoring people around campus. Learning from all of you is my greatest take-away.

Abundantly grateful, Sandy Yang

“Always rejoice, unceasingly pray, in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.” (I Thess 5:16-18)



Posted in: