Reaffirmation of Accreditation Teams

Higher Learning Commission Accreditation

Andrew Holmes

Director of University Accreditation and Accreditation Liaison Officer, Office of the Provost - Executive Director of Technology, 51��x

Adriana Cardoso Reyes

Assistant Director of Institutional Accreditation, Office of Institutional Effectiveness

Amanda Geer

Copywriter, 51��x

About Team Roles

HLC Advisory Council

What is the HLC Advisory Council?

The HLC Advisory Council provides assistance to the criterion teams in the form of data collection and review of reports. The Council also assists with awareness and educational campaigns of HLC accreditation.

Why?

It is necessary to include multiple voices and perspectives from all over campus to support HLC Reaffirmation of Accreditation. The HLC Advisory Council is made up of representatives from across the University.

What to expect

The HLC Advisory Council will continue to be informed and involved with the reaccreditation process. Recently, during the 2018-19 academic year, the Council completed an Evidence Audit of HLC Assumed Practices to provide evidence for the Assurance Argument. The Council will continue to serve the University with accreditation guidance when the April 2021 Visit is complete.

Internal Peer Review Team

What is the Internal Peer Review Team?

The University's Internal Peer Review Team is made up of 51�� staff and faculty members who have been trained as HLC peer reviewers. Their role is to evaluate the Assurance Argument and artifacts from the perspective of the Higher Learning Commission.

Why?

This team serves as internal content experts that ensure the correct interpretation of the Criteria for Accreditation and Federal Compliance Form.

What to expect:

The peer review team will be providing guidance and feedback during the entire reaffirmation process.

Criterion Teams

What are the Criterion Teams?

The Criterion Chairs and their teams will collect and compile information and evidence to sufficiently address the core components of the Assurance Argument.

Why?

Criterion teams are made up of individuals who are content experts and serve to identify the most clear evidence for the Assurance Argument.

What to expect:

Each team will consist of at least one Criterion Chair, one Internal Peer Reviewer and a subset of institutional stakeholders with the knowledge, ability and willingness to provide thorough and timely assistance.

Criterion 1: Mission

- Jennifer Bott
  Chair
- Adriana Cardoso Reyes
  Internal Peer Reviewer

Team Members

- Paula Davis
- Terri Goss Kinzy
- Paulo Zagalo-Melo
- Chad Edwards
- Liliana Salas
- Katie John
- Taylor West

Criterion 2: Integrity

- Jessica Swartz
  Chair
- Andy Kline
  Internal Peer Reviewer

Team Members

- Nicole Millar Albee
- John Jellies
- Joan L. Beffel
- Michele Cole
- Julia Mays
- Felecia Crawford
- Sandy Streb

Criterion 3: Teaching and Learning

Quality, Resources, and Support

- Devrim Yaman
  Chair
- Andrea Beach
  Internal Peer Reviewer

Team Members

- Kristal Erhardt
- Decker Hains
- Craig Morris
- Bruce Ferrin
- Keith Hearit
- Cathe Springsteen
- Tomika Griffin-Brown
- Brian Horvitz

Criterion 4: Teaching and Learning

Evaluation and Improvement

- Ciji Heiser
  Co-chair
- Megan Slayter
  Co-chair
- Stacie Fruth
  Internal Peer Reviewer

Team Members

- Lindsey Palar
- Daniela Schroeter
- Katrina Goodall
- David Paul
- Sarah Summy
- David Reinhold
- Ewa Urban

Criterion 5: Institutional Effectiveness, Resources and Planning

- Jeff Long
  Chair
- Keith Hearit
  Internal Peer Reviewer

Team Members

- Chris Cheatham
- Colleen Scarf
- Fen Yu
- Kathleen Springsteen
- Jason Long
- Kahler Schuemann
- Jason Jach
- Kay Mortellaro
- Peter Strazdas
- Cathleen Smith

Learn more about team roles

Get Involved

51������

Higher Learning Commission Accreditation