The following is the text of the report presented to the Board at its October 2013 meeting.<\/em><\/p>\n Just quickly to remind you–we are accredited by the Higher Learning Commission.\u00a0 Every ten years we conduct a self-study and apply to have our accreditation continued.\u00a0 The HLC has a set of five criteria that each member institution must address in their self-study.<\/p>\n We are currently at a point where we have collected evidence for all five criteria and have summarized it in bullet points.\u00a0 You will remember that this document was the result of a year of work on the part of five working groups composed of faculty, staff, and students.\u00a0 We took all their work and created huge documents that contain very detailed information and evidence lists.\u00a0 From these, we pulled out the most essential information and created condensed versions \u2014Angela will be posting those to the Board wiki next week. \u00a0The condensed versions are just that, condensed.\u00a0 They do not include the list of the evidence we are using nor does it include the \u201cassumed practices\u201d section.\u00a0 Assumed practices are things that the HLC sees as minimum standards.\u00a0 Institutions are expected to meet them.\u00a0 Because we have evidence to show that we are in compliance with all of these assumed practices, we have left them off the condensed version of the documents.<\/p>\n We are spending this month taking the document to different constituencies for feedback\u2014this includes Cabinet, other administrators, the major committees and other key individuals across campus.\u00a0 We send them the portions of the criteria that are most relevant to their work and they let us know what might be missing or wrong and they give us additional evidence for our points.<\/p>\n We will be posting these condensed versions soon on the College website for anyone to comment on.<\/p>\n On November 1 we are hosting a Read In Day.\u00a0 We will break up these condensed documents into small pieces (2-3 pages) and station ourselves at various locations around campus.\u00a0 Anyone can come, choose a section that interests them, read it, and comment on it.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 To ensure that staff can participate, we have set aside a special place and time for them to drop in\u2014the Staff Committee has been helping us with this.\u00a0 We have already begun advertising for the Read In on campus.<\/p>\n After Read In, we are going into a cave and writing the report (think of monks at large tables with quills).\u00a0 The report will be narrative\u2014much more interesting to read than these bullet points.\u00a0 At this point, we do not think it will strictly follow the order of the HLC\u2019s criteria.\u00a0 It is important to us that we Woosterize this and create a document that helps us with our strategic planning.\u00a0 Additionally, these criteria are brand new to the HLC\u2014and they are still a little rough.\u00a0 For example, there is repetition across the criteria.\u00a0 We have gone ahead and repeated ourselves in our drafts, but when we write the report, we will make sure to say things only once.<\/p>\n At some point in the beginning of the year, the HLC requires us to initiate a period of public comment.\u00a0 This means that we will have to let the larger Wooster community, parents, and alumni know about the reaccreditation and give them an opportunity to comment on the College\u2019s operations.\u00a0 We plan to put notices in the Daily Record<\/em> and on our website.\u00a0 People will be directed to the HLC website where they can leave comments.<\/p>\n We hope to have a draft of the report by the time school reconvenes in January.\u00a0 There will be a short period for comments before we finalize the report.\u00a0 The final version has to be done 8 weeks ahead (mid-February) and sent to the visiting team and the HLC electronically.<\/p>\n The visit is April 15-17.\u00a0 The visiting team will want to meet with some members of the Board.\u00a0 Our HLC representative says that most teams like to meet with Board members early on in the visit\u2014usually Monday morning.\u00a0 The team will also want to meet with the major committees on campus, the senior staff and some directors, and with students, faculty, and staff in open session. \u00a0We should be talking with the chair of the visiting team about two months ahead so that we can set up a schedule that works for them.<\/p>\n We do not expect to receive the report from the visiting team until the Fall of 2013.\u00a0 At that point, we will have a chance to correct any errors of fact before they issue a final version to the institutional accreditation committee of the HLC which ultimately makes the continuing accreditation decision.<\/p>\n We are going to let you know some of the main findings to emerge from each of the criterion.\u00a0 This is in no way comprehensive, but we wanted to give you a flavor of what we see as the main themes\u2014both in terms of areas in which the College is doing well and areas in which there is room for improvement.\u00a0 The overall message, however, is that the College is doing extremely well and has made remarkable progress in many areas over the last ten years.<\/p>\n + The College has a mission mindset. \u00a0The mission drives discourse on campus. \u00a0Strategic planning is much more comprehensive and it is also driven by the mission.<\/p>\n + The educational mission of the College calls on us to embrace diversity.\u00a0 We have made strides in becoming more diverse, we continue to work on fostering a welcoming campus climate for all.<\/p>\n – One small section of this criterion asks about being mindful that we also serve the public good. We conduct a number of activities that serve the public good. \u00a0Some of these activities, however, do not explicitly describe how they fit with the College\u2019s mission. \u00a0Camps and conferences are an example.<\/p>\n + The Wooster Ethic is an important component of College life.<\/p>\n – \u00a0The ethic should be more integrated into the fabric of the College. (This came up in discussions with students and staff.)<\/p>\n + \u00a0Our focus on improving our governance processes and increasing transparency has resulted in revisions in many policies, governing structures, and documents, all emphasizing \u201cbest practices\u201d including integrity, ethical and responsible conduct, and communication.<\/p>\n +\u00a0 We have many policies that guide our behavior and operations.<\/p>\n –\u00a0 It may be difficult to find all the policies (i.e., they are not easily located). \u00a0Faculty and staff may not be aware of all the policies. Some are outdated or inconsistent with others. We are not always consistent in how well we communicate changes in policies.<\/p>\n + \u00a0The website is one place that we present ourselves to all our constituencies.<\/p>\n – \u00a0\u00a0As we have used the website more as a \u201crepository\u201d it has become cluttered and \u00a0difficult to navigate. +\u00a0 There have been major advances in advising (from Arch to APEX). \u00a0We took a process that was good and made it better.<\/p>\n + \u00a0We are working actively to integrate the College\u2019s mission and graduate qualities into departmental learning goals and into individual classes.<\/p>\n +\u00a0 One of the components of criterion three is that we have the facilities that support student learning.\u00a0 Evidence of this is our continued updating of our campus facilities master plan with an eye to facilities that support our core mission.<\/p>\n +\u00a0 The HLC asks if \u201cevery degree program engages students in collecting and analyzing information.\u201d\u00a0 We love this one because it describes IS to a tee.<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0 Staff training and development opportunities are not always well advertised. \u00a0Not all staff members are aware of the opportunities available to them and some would like more opportunities for training, for example.\u00a0 We do recognize that while initial efforts are being made, we should pay continued attention to advancing our human resource function.<\/p>\n +\u00a0\u00a0 Programs that exist around retention and persistence have been updated and improved.<\/p>\n +\u00a0\u00a0 We do much more assessment than we did 10 years ago and we do it much better than we did 10 years ago.<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0 There is room for assessment efforts to be better integrated.\u00a0 For example, we have only recently begun to work on an institutional feedback loop\u2014using assessment conducted at the departmental and program level to make institutional planning decisions.<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0 In addition, we may have reached an assessment plateau. This means that assessment is very much part of our culture now and we understand what we are doing.\u00a0 As a result, we are ready to look over our policies from a place of knowledge and decide on a direction for the future.\u00a0 Some policies may need to be changed and roles and responsibilities more clearly delineated.<\/p>\n +\u00a0\u00a0 The budget planning process is much more mission-driven and data-driven than in the past.<\/p>\n + and – \u00a0\u00a0While our resource base supports our current program adequately in terms of HLC\u2019s financial benchmark, we know we must grow and diversify our sources of revenue.<\/p>\n + \u00a0\u00a0Through intentional, planning priority related resource allocation, we have increased the proportion of our resource allocation to our \u201ccore mission\u201d(primarily educational activities) and decreased our allocation to \u201cinstitutional support\u201d (primarily administration)<\/p>\n + \u00a0\u00a0We definitely engage in systematic and integrated planning.<\/p>\n – \u00a0\u00a0We still have work to do on documenting the linkages among our planning, assessment, and resource allocation decisions.<\/p>\n In sum, the process of self study has\u2014so far\u2014been extremely useful in helping us to think about the ways we have grown as an institution.\u00a0 In conjunction with our strategic planning work, it is also giving us the space to think about where we want to go in the next ten years. Our feeling is that, while there are minor areas where the HLC\u00a0 may express concern, overall, the re-accreditation process should proceed smoothly<\/p>\n What can you do to help?\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n We would love to have any input you might have on any of the criteria.\u00a0 You can email us comments or call us\u2014whatever works for you.\u00a0 As I mentioned, we would really prefer all comments to come in by November 1.\u00a0 The Board has a unique and important perspective on this institution and we want the document to adequately\u2014and accurately\u2014represent that perspective.\u00a0 Thank you for your time.<\/p>\n Our self-study process has moved into the assimilation of findings and writing stages.\u00a0 This briefing is a first look at the findings of our five working groups, in the context of the Higher Learning Commission\u2019s Criteria for Accreditation<\/em>.<\/p>\n Significant themes that are emerging as we review the reports of the working groups include:<\/p>\n We have some components yet to complete.\u00a0 That is our work for June as we weave our criteria-based findings with evidence from our periodic assessments of progress on our strategic objectives and initiatives.<\/p>\n Our self-study process has moved into the evidence gathering and examination phase with working groups focused on their research, analysis, and the initial formulation of findings.\u00a0\u00a0 We are now working with the Higher Learning Commission\u2019s \u201cgamma\u201d version of the new criteria for accreditation. The Steering Committee has reviewed working group progress to date, outlined strategy and plans for this term, and have started to incorporate our Strategic Framework and emerging trends into the self-study.\u00a0 At this point in the process, students, faculty, and staff are engaged in the self-study as experts, providing working groups with insight into the evidence that is being gathered and examined. \u00a0President Cornwell will meet with each working group this semester.<\/p>\nMain Findings:<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Criterion 1<\/strong><\/h5>\n
Criterion 2<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\n+ The changes the Board has made in its governance structure have resulted in the Board focusing on high-level matters of strategic importance to the college, and as a result of these discussions, the Board taking specific actions in advancing elements of our Strategic Framework.<\/p>\n\u00a0Criterion 3<\/strong><\/h5>\n
Criterion 4<\/strong><\/h5>\n
Criterion 5<\/strong><\/h5>\n
June 2012<\/h2>\n
\n
February 2012<\/h2>\n
The New Criteria for Accreditation<\/strong><\/h4>\n