About Manchester

Accreditation Assurance Review

2017 INSTITUTIONAL ACCREDITATION REVIEW


In July 2017, Manchester University will undergo our mid-cycle Assurance Review, under the Higher Learning Commission’s (HLC) Open Pathway for re-accreditation.  Manchester started the Open Pathway process after our comprehensive visit and re-accreditation in 2012.  The following highlights are provided to familiarize you with the review process and opportunities to be involved:


Open Pathway Process

The Open Pathway for Reaffirmation of Accreditation process includes both improvement and assurance components, over a 10-year cycle.  The process involves:

  • Regular Monitoring through submission of annual Institutional Updates
  • Year 4: Assurance Review through an online submission of a 35,000-word argument and supporting evidence to demonstrate how the institution meets accreditation criteria
  • Years 5-9: Quality Initiative, a multi-year improvement project of our choosing
  • Year 10: Comprehensive Evaluation including an assurance review, federal compliance review, and on-site visit

Manchester University is preparing our Year 4 Assurance Review to demonstrate how we meet the following five criteria for re-accreditation:

  1. Mission;
  2. Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct;
  3. Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources, and Support;
  4. Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement; and
  5. Resources, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness. 


Each of the above criteria includes several core components. For a full description of the criteria and the 21 core components, please visit the HLC website.  A panel of peer reviewers will evaluate whether Manchester meets the criteria through review of our Assurance Argument and Evidence File.


Opportunities for Engagement


A 10-member accreditation committee led by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness will draft the Assurance Argument and compile the Evidence File.  This work depends on support and contributions from numerous members of the University community.  In particular, we will be engaging staff and faculty members in the development of the Assurance Argument and collection of documentation for the Evidence File.  We will also ask members of the University community to review of the draft Assurance Filing and provide feedback.  We have developed a communication plan to keep the University community informed throughout the re-accreditation process.


Committee Members


Liz Bushnell, Institutional Effectiveness

Wendy Hoffman, Business

Katharine Ings, Arts & Humanities

Julie Knuth, President’s Office

Paige Krouse, Institutional Effectiveness

Mary Lahman, Education & Social Sciences

Jeff Osborne, Pharmacy, Natural & Health Sciences

Heather Schilling, Education & Social Sciences

Cindy Seitz, Business Office

Tommy Smith, Pharmacy, Natural & Health Sciences


Assurance Review Timeline

Assurance Review Timeline