�鶹��

Timeline

• 

  Spring Quarter:

  HLC Steering Committee and Working Groups Compile First Draft of Assurance Arguments

• 

  Summer 2019:��

  Planning Committee Reviews First Draft and Writes Second Draft with Writing Team

• 

  Fall 2019 - Spring 2020

  Campus-Wide Engagement Activities and Events

• 

  Summer 2020

  Planning Team Finalizes Arguments with Stakeholder Input, Submits Final Arguments to HLC

• 

  Early Fall 2020:��

  Finalize Details for HLC Campus Visit

• 

  October 19-20, 2020:

  Campus Visit by HLC Peer Reviewers

The Open Pathway’s 10-year cycle includes the following institutional reviews:

• Regular Monitoring

  Institutions submit an annual Institutional Update, which is reviewed by HLC to monitor organizational health, comply with certain federal requirements, and identify any changes that may require HLC follow up. HLC will also apply change processes as appropriate to planned institutional developments, and will monitor institutions through reports, visits and other means as it deems appropriate.

• Year 4: Assurance Review

  Institutions complete an Assurance Review to ensure they are continuing to meet HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation. The institution provides documentation demonstrating how it fulfills each Criterion and Core Component. A peer review team evaluates these materials and recommends whether the institution should continue in the cycle or whether additional monitoring is required. HLC’s Institutional Actions Council (IAC) reviews and takes official action on the recommendation.

• Years 5 - 9: Quality Initiative

  Institutions design and undertake a Quality Initiative project. HLC peer reviewers approve an initial project proposal, as well as a report on the outcomes of the project.

• Year 10: Comprehensive Evaluation

  Note: This will occur at the �鶹�� in October 2020.

  Institutions undergo a comprehensive evaluation to ensure they are meeting the Criteria for Accreditation, pursuing institutional improvement and complying with certain requirements set by the U.S. Department of Education. This review leads to an action regarding the reaffirmation of the institution’s accreditation.

  More �鶹�� Comprehensive Evaluation:

  HLC conducts comprehensive evaluations of member institutions to confirm that the institution continues to meet the Criteria for Accreditation, is pursuing institutional improvement and complies with requirements sets by the U.S. Department of Education. Evaluations are conducted by teams of peer reviewers.

  The evaluation that occurs in the final year of each pathway cycle—Year 10 for Open Pathway—includes an action regarding the institution’s reaffirmation of accreditation.

Assurance Argument Goals

HLC conducts an Assurance Review to determine whether an institution continues to meet the Criteria for Accreditation, every 4 and 10 years. The �鶹�� is approaching our 10 year review and is currently drafting assurance arguments and collecting evidence for our comprehensive evaluation in 2020. The assurance arguments detail how the University is meeting the criteria set forth by HLC, using materials such as websites, policies, reports and more as evidence. The Criteria for Accreditation are as follows:

• Criterion 1:��Mission
  • The institution’s mission is clear and articulated publicly; it guides the institution’s operations.
• Criterion 2:��Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct
  • The institution acts with integrity; its conduct is ethical and responsible.
• Criterion 3:��Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources, and Support
  • The institution provides high quality education, wherever and however its offerings are delivered.
• Criterion 4:��Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement
  • The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs, learning environments, and support services, and it evaluates their effectiveness for student learning through processes designed to promote continuous improvement.
• Criterion 5:��Resources, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness
  • The institution’s resources, structures, and processes are sufficient to fulfill its mission, improve the quality of its educational offerings, and respond to future challenges and opportunities. The institution plans for the future.

The University will submit both the assurance arguments with an evidence file, using HLC’S online Assurance System in the summer of 2020 after significant consultation with campus stakeholders, including faculty, staff and students. Prior to DU’s campus visit, a team of peer reviewers evaluates the assurance argument with corresponding evidence to provide a recommendation as to whether the institution meets the Criteria for Accreditation.

After the visit, a decision-making body within HLC reviews the University’s materials and the recommendation from the peer review team and takes official action.

Accreditation Committees

• Gaps Analysis Group

  The Gaps Analysis group is reviewing all five criterion arguments and��identify the gaps where content and/or evidence is missing and needed.

  Name	Title
  Casey Dinger	Interim Vice Provost of Internationalization��
  Adrienne Gonzales	Director of the Center for World Languages and Cultures
  Clint Emmerich	Assistant Provost, Budget and Analysis
  Keith Miller	Interim Associate Provost of Graduate Education��
  Michele Hanna	Associate Professor, Graduate School of Social Work
  Richard Colby	Assistant Director, First Year Writing, and Teaching Professor, Writing Program
  Chip Reichardt	Professor, Psychology��
  Christina Paguyo	Director, Academic Assessment
  Allison Friederichs	Associate Dean and Teaching Associate Professor, College of Professional Studies
  Sarah Hoffman	Assistant Provost, Student Success
  Deigan Silver	Associate Professor, Media, Film and Journalism Studies, Director, CILCA
  Kimberly Bender	Interim Associate Provost for Research
  Lory-Ann Varela	Interim Executive Director of Culture, Access and Transitions Program

  ��

• Criterion 1: Mission

  The Mission Committee is responsible for ensuring the University's mission, which guides our operations, is clear and articulated publicly.��Thank you to the following people for drafting the initial argument for Criterion 1:

  Name	Title	Unit
  Kristin Deal	Interim Director	Office of Diversity and Inclusion
  Cara DiEnno	Associate Director	Center for Community Engagement to advance Scholarship and Learning
  Allana Forte	Assistant Vice Chancellor	Enrollment
  Garret Glass	Assistant Director, Production	Newman Center
  Theresa Hernandez*	Assistant Vice Chancellor, Campus Partnerships	Information Technology
  Darrin Hicks*	Professor, Communication Studies	College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences
  Madeline Phipps	Sr. Media Relations Specialist	Department of Marketing and Communications
  Audrey Schiavone	Teaching Assistant Professor	Writing Program

  *��— Committee chairs

• Criterion 2: Integrity

  The Integrity Committee is responsible for ensuring that the University acts with integrity and that our conduct is ethical and responsible.��Thank you to the following people for drafting the initial argument for Criterion 2:

  Name	Title	Unit
  Sarah Buenavidez	Associate Director, Graduate Enrollment	Graduate Education
  Brian Gonzales	Clinical Assistant Professor	Graduate School of Social Work
  Niki Latino	Associate Vice Chancellor	Campus Life and Inclusive Excellence
  Jerron Lowe	Director, Human Resource Partnerships	Human Resources and Inclusive Community
  Timothy Sisk*	Professor	Josef Korbel School of International Studies��
  Tiffany Wen	Director	Internal Audit
  Paul Kosempel*	Teaching Associate Professor, Pioneer Leadership Living and Learning Community	Pioneer Leadership Program
  Audry LaCrone	Communications Manager	Office of Research and Sponsored Programs

  *��— Committee chairs

• Criterion 3: Teaching and Learning — Quality, Resources and Support

  The��Teaching and Learning — Quality, Resources and Support Committee is responsible for ensuring the University provides high quality education, wherever and however our offerings are delivered.��Thank you to the following people for drafting the initial argument for Criterion 3:

  Name	Title	Unit
  Ayla Engelhart	Associate Director, Student Outreach	Campus Life and Inclusive Excellence
  Brian Gearity*	Director, MA Coach and Sport Ed	Graduate School of Professional Psychology
  Anthea Johnson Rooen	Director, College Access and Pipeline	Campus Life and Inclusive Excellence
  Richard Colby	Teaching Associate Professor	Writing Program
  Luc Beaudoin	Vice Chancellor for Internationalization	Office of Internationalization
  Virginia Pitts	Director, University Teaching	Office of Teaching and Learning
  Adrienne Gonzales	Interim Director	World Languages and Cultures
  Ingrid Tague*	Associate Dean	College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences

  *��— Committee chairs

• Criterion 4: Teaching and Learning — Evaluation and Improvement

  The��Teaching and Learning — Evaluation and Improvement Committee is responsible for ensuring the University demonstrates responsibility for the quality of our educational programs, learning environments and support services. The committee also evaluates the effectiveness of those programs, environments and services for student learning through processes designed to promote continuous improvement.��Thank you to the following people for drafting the initial argument for Criterion 4:

  Name	Title	Unit
  Jennifer Anderson	Associate Director, CPD Info and Systems	Career and Professional Development
  Michael Brent	Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy	College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences
  Michelle Kruse-Crocker	Teaching Associate Professor	College of Professional Studies
  Christina Paguyo	Director, Academic Assessment	Office of Teaching and Learning
  Maggie Red*	Associate Dean, Programs and Partnerships	Colorado Women's College
  Nancy Sasaki	Teaching Professor	Natural Sciences and Mathematics
  Rachel Walsh	Associate Professor, Languages and Literatures	College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences
  Kate Willink*	Faculty Director	Office of Teaching and Learning

  *��— Committee chairs

• Criterion 5: Resources, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness

  The��Resources, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Committee's responsibility is to ensure the University's resources, structures and processes are sufficient to fulfill our mission, improve the quality of our educational offerings and respond to future challenges and opportunities.��Thank you to the following people for drafting the initial argument for Criterion 5:

  Name	Title	Unit
  Emily Allen	Program Coordinator	Pioneer Leadership Program
  Don Bacon	Professor, Marketing	Daniels College of Business
  Linda Kosten*	Vice Provost	Planning and Budget
  Leandra Martinez	Assistant Controller	Controller's Office
  Chip Reichardt*	Professor, Psychology	College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences
  Keith Rhodes	Teaching Assistant Professor	Writing Program
  James Rosner	Associate Vice Chancellor	Facilities
  Shannon Seales	Learning and Development Consultant	Human Resources and Inclusive Community

  *��— Committee chairs

• Planning Committee
  • Jennifer Karas, Vice Provost of Academic Affairs��
  • Alex Lustig, Project Manager