Stipulations
How does this support student success? This would stifle growth for an institution and not promote the framework of Kuh el al. or Carnegie. Kul list the characteristics of the their framework. It suggests that student success is dependent upon: academic achievement, engagement educationally purposeful activities, satisfaction, etc. This component of HLC does not align in my mind.
Multi-Location Visits Accredited institutions with three or more active additional locations are required to undergo a multi-location visit in Years 3 and 8 of their Pathway for Reaffirmation of Accreditation cycle. The visit confirms the institution's continued effective oversight of its additional locations. (An institution’s additional locations and branch campuses are also reviewed through HLC’s substantive change and comprehensive evaluation processes.)
This point or factor hear in HLC reminds me of the experience I had with ACSSB. Every 5 years Spears School of Business is up to prepare for another visit. HLC asserts that he purpose of the visit is to ensure that institutions maintain effect oversight at all campus locations. I believe that in a round about way the Kuh et al. would support this notion in their framework for student success. This idea could be found in their concept of a holistic definition.
HLC relies on member institutions' adherence to its expectations and frequently reviews such adherence to ensure quality higher education. HLC also regularly communicates any changes in its expectations. HLC’s relationship with an institution may come under review at any time as the institution’s circumstances change.
I believe that HLC and Carnegie align here in the accreditation process because they both have student success in mind. Carnegie suggests that for a college to have a passing grade they should be able to answer two questions in the affirmative: Are we opening doors to a wide range of students? And are those students leaving college with an education that puts them closer to a future that they have dreamed of and worked for.. Carnegie suggests, however, that this not what colleges are really graded on which leads back to my previous annotation. What is the accreditation process really about?
HLC is an institutional accreditor recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation to accredit degree-granting colleges and universities. Institutional accreditation validates the quality of an institution's academic programs at all degree levels, whether delivered on-site, online or otherwise. Institutional accreditation also examines the quality of the institution beyond its academic offerings and evaluates the institution as a whole, including the soundness of its governance and administration, adherence to mission, the sustainability of its finances, and the sufficiency of its resources. HLC maintains an active relationship with its member institutions, with frequent communication and regular reviews to ensure quality higher education.
I find this fact interesting that HLC is an accreditor because Spears School of Business just completed a six year accreditation through ACSSB. It was a daunting ordeal for many of the departments. Additionally, spears had just hired a new dean , who, in lieu of the required accreditation initiated a system SWAT analysis. As each staff and faculty member journeyed through this accreditation process I often wandered if the process is an exercise in academics or politics. ACSSB wanted to include all stakeholder in the accreditation process. Spears mantra is "The power of Personal". Mantra permeates aspect of our culture. One of the organizational perspectives that Kuh et al. brought out was the student's belief in the institution they attend. This where I believe that these to pieces intersect. In this specific case with Spears, the implementation of the mantra "Power of Personal" has had a significant impact on how the students feel about attending OSU. This in turn prove to have a positive impact on the accreditation with ACSSB.