HLC Writing Team

1. HLC Writing Team • Mike Schaefer - Chair of SPARC • Lynn Burley - Director of Academic Assessment • Janet Wilson - Faculty Senate President • Dianna Winters - President of Staff Senate • Austin Hall - President of SGA • Jonathan Glenn - Author of the 2010 HLC Self Study, and Chief Information Officer

2. HLC Writing Team • Diane Newton - Member of Senior Staff, & Chief Financial Aid Officer • Brad Teague - Member of Senior Staff, & Athletics Director • Conrad Shumaker - Director of General Education • Steve Runge- Interim Provost • Maurice Lee - HLC Consultant/Evaluator and Dean • Neil Hattlestad- HLC Consultant/Evaluator and Dean

3. Adequacy of Progress in Addressing Previously Identified Challenges: The 2000 HLC team identified three areas of concern that UCA was mandated to address: • Comprehensive long-range planning • Governance processes and structures • Policies and procedures for meeting diverse student and employee needs “The 2010 HLC team considers the response of the organization to previously identified challenges to be inadequate” P.9 of Assurance Section of the 2010 HLC Team report

4. Areas of Focus for Monitoring Report: “The monitoring report will document results of the strategic planning process at UCA…HLC staff will expect to see a completed, comprehensive, long-range plan ready for implementation…this will include processes & procedures to implement & monitor the plan, and take action for: • Meeting the needs of diverse students & employees & provide for full inclusion of diverse groups into the life of the university;

5. Areas of Focus for Monitoring Report: • Incorporating shared governance, transparent communication & an organizational & administrative structure with well-defined roles & responsibilities; • Establishing a culture of assessment of student learning that is aligned with the mission of the university; and 4) Evaluating & measuring INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS in non-instructional programs, institutional outreach, and student support for all instructional delivery modes” P.31 of 2010 HLC team report

6. Five Criteria – Team Findings are Listed Under 1 of 3 categories: • Evidence that the Core Components are met • Evidence that one or more Core Components need organizational attention 3) Evidence that one or more specified Core Components require Commission follow-up

7. Criterion 1 – Mission and Integrity • “The team found scant evidence that the mission statement played a meaningful role in university-wide, formal decision-making over the past decade.” p.13 3) “…the Faculty Handbook contains only two mentions of diversity.” p.14 • “The university planning processes seem to have died in 2004 with the production of the Strategic Framework.” p.14 3) “UCA does not seem to have any pathway through which learning outcomes assessment results are communicated above the level of the deans.” p.14

8. Criterion 2 – Preparing for the Future • “Most evaluation and assessment at UCA is, as planning, at the unit level.” p.17 • “as UCA implements its long-range plan it must establish key performance indicators that measure the overall health and direction of institutional performance as an aggregate of collections of units.” 3) “…the Strategic Framework…has not become an operational guide for the university and its elements.” p.18

9. Criterion 2 (continued) • “There is little evident planning related to diversity & internationalization of the campus.” p.18 • “…at the time of the visit, UCA was under a mandated HLC Financial Recovery Plan due to declining financial ratios beginning in 2003.” 3) “…the future role of the Budget Advisory committee will need to be clarified.”

10. Criterion 3 – Student Learning and Effective Teaching • “…assessment goals and objectives are often abstract and general…” p.22 • “While UCA reviews general education, it appears unable to think broadly about the skills and attitudes this critical program implies for the students…students do not understand, for example, why they need to take coursework in the sciences or history.” p.23 3) “Currently, there are no demonstrated learning outcomes for UCA’s General Education Program.” p.24

11. Criterion 4 – Acquisition, Discovery, and Application of Knowledge 2) “…a review of 2008 annual reports of a group of general education providing departments shows serious inconsistencies in the role of the discipline in general education, what is assessment and how it is done, and the use of the results, if any (i.e., closing the loop).” p.26

12. Criterion 5 – Engagement and Service • “…there is little evidence of systematic analysis of participant surveys, or of university response to input received from advisory panels.” p.29 2) “…a more systematic effort at collecting and analyzing evaluative data from participants in hosted events would allow the university to more accurately assess the effectiveness of its efforts to serve its campus and external constituencies.”

13. Focused Visit in 2014 “The team will expect to see the comprehensive, long-range plan fully established. Successful results of the implemented plan will include a budgeting process that reflects allocations based on strategic priorities, which in turn advance DIVERSITY, GOVERNANCE, COMMUNICATION, ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING, AND ASSESSMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS.” p.31

14. VISION – UCA aspires to be a premier learner-focused public comprehensive university, a nationally recognized leader for its continuous record of excellence in education, scholarly & creative endeavors, and engagement with local, national, and global communities. MISSION – UCA dedicates itself to academic vitality, integrity, and diversity. AVID

15. UCA’s people have demonstrated a resiliency and a deep commitment to their lived mission and to their students and each other…They have continued to attract students who are academically very competitive. (Assurance Section, p.4) Over this time (2002-2007), an ever increasing number of students attended UCA, received quality instruction from dedicated faculty and benefitted from existing and new academic programs. (Assurance Section, p.16)

16. Samples of Student Outcomes Statements Graduates of this program will be able to: • administer age-appropriate and culturally sensitive assessment measures; • develop and implement effective treatment plans using appropriate data; • effectively document treatment procedures and results; and, • create recommendations for referrals and discharge plans based on data collected from an effective evaluation process.