University off notice after meeting HLC requirements
The University underwent a long process after being put on notice in 2015, but the work has paid off, as it has been taken off of notice by the Higher Learning Commission and has maintained accreditation.
The University was notified of the decision on March 8. In order to gain this compliance with the HLC requirements, the University had to write a formal report by July 1, 2016, responding to the items that they found to be in need of improvement in 2015. These included program quality, program assessment, assessment of student learning, shared governance, strategic planning and systematic improvement.
The school took several initiatives in order to address those areas, the first being academic program reviews. Nicholas Santilli, associate provost for accreditation and institutional effectiveness, explained them as mini self-studies within each department.
Improvements made under this category include University and departmental learning goals that are now included on course syllabi. An assessment report within each department was sent to Todd Bruce, director of assessment.
Another area of improvement was in forming a strategic plan. This plan sets goals for the institution and allows people to have an understanding of how the University functions. After examining the workings of the University, administrators can find gaps to improve upon within the running of the school.
“[These reviews help us to] function as a high performance institution. We can improve the student experience and the experience of others to help them do their job better,” said Santilli.
Another area of concern was assessing student learning outcomes. These are measured by looking beyond grades and instead at how well students met the learning outcomes for each class. Santilli explained that the departments develop authentic ways in classes to measure student learning such as specific rubrics for written assignments or oral presentations.
In order to improve shared governance, faculty and staff both have been more heavily involved in decision making processes that affect the University. “The culture changed for the staff to have a voice like never before here. Their opinions are valued,” said Rory Hill, chair of the staff council.
The staff council focused on improving their morale by having community building programs such as Friday socials with food trucks. In addition to boosting morale among staff members, the council met with Santilli to discuss the basics of what the staff council was doing.
During the HLC campus visit in September of 2016, evaluators met with the staff council on the first day of the visit. They then scheduled a second meeting the following day to hear about the staff’s experiences without having a supervisor present. Hill said that, “They showed up in force. It was a transparent process and rewarding for staff members to get their voices out.”
Similarly, the faculty council also met with the HLC visiting team members. History professor and member of the faculty council, Marcus Gallo, said, “The meeting went smoothly, with council members explaining how the council contributes to transparent faculty governance.” The biggest change that the faculty can expect after the process is maintaining a culture of assessment.
“From now on, the University expects each department to formally assess its curriculum on an annual basis and use data to make decisions about changes,” said Gallo.
The action report stating the concerns about the University was between 50 and 60 pages. The formal report that was written in response to this report stated the HLC concern, what the University did to address it and what they plan on continuing to do.
When finished, the report was 4,000 pages. The majority of the document was evidence that supported the University’s argument. Santilli, along with Chair of the Education Department Catherine Rosemary and Provost Jeanne Colleran, co-chaired the task force who were charged with addressing the action report.
Santilli said, “It was a large undertaking and the work of a lot of people. Everyone on campus contributed in some way. It was a campus response, which is what is should be.”
After the September visit by three HLC representatives from other institutions, the representatives submitted a report to the HLC board of trustees. In addition to the reports from the visiting team, the HLC board of trustees was given a report from the HLC liaison, copies of John Carroll’s program reviews and strategic plan and the formal report, off of which to use as evidence to base their decision.
There are three categories that a university can fall under after being reviewed. They are: fully met, met with concerns, and not in compliance. John Carroll fell under the fully met category, meaning it was taken off notice.
The University can anticipate another visit in spring 2019. The HLC has a regular review process for universities in the North Central Region.
“I think the process went very well. Everyone cooperated [and created] an honest appraisal of the work done at JCU. We are a stronger institution as a consequence of our work,” said Santilli.
