HLC Comprehensive Evaluation
Grace College and Seminary’s 2023 Comprehensive Evaluation
On February 27-28, 2023, Grace hosted the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) Peer Review Team on campus for a mid-cycle Comprehensive Evaluation Site Visit as part of the Standard Pathway accreditation process with HLC. The purpose of the visit was to ensure that Grace was meeting the Criteria for Accreditation and was continuing to pursue institutional improvement.
The Peer Review team met with various constituents representing our institution to validate the evidence presented in Grace’s Assurance Argument, then drafted a report to the Institutional Actions Council (IAC) for the Higher Learning Commission (see documents below).Â
Grace College & Seminary’s current status is Accredited. See Statement of Accreditation Status here
Frequently Asked Questions About Accreditation
-
- A review process to assure the overall academic quality of an institution of higher education and its commitment to continuous improvement.Â
- A process required to be eligible for federal student financial aid.
-
- February 27-28, 2023
-
- A team of five members conducted interviews with the Grace students, faculty, staff, administration, and Board of Trustees.
- Team members sought to validate the evidence presented in the Assurance Argument.
-
- Being available when the HLC team was on campus. Reviewing Grace’s Mission, Core Values, and Brand Promise
- Reading Grace’s Assurance Argument
- Becoming familiar with Grace’s Strategic Plan
- Being familiar with HLC Accreditation Criteria
-
- Participate in the HLC forums.
- Answer questions from the review team candidly and thoughtfully.
- If you don’t know the answer, acknowledge you don’t know rather than attempt to make up answers.
Possible Questions from the Peer Review Team
The following lists provide examples of the types of questions that peer review teams are likely to ask. These lists are not exhaustive. Expect the team to ask additional general and Grace-specific questions.Â
-
- What are the characteristics of a Grace education?Â
- What is your department’s vision for the future? How does this relate to Grace’s vision?Â
- Talk about shared governance and how faculty participate in decision—making at different levels of the college (committees, senates, department meetings, advisory boards).Â
- How would you describe the relationship between faculty and administration? What works and what needs improvement?Â
- Describe the relationship between Grace’s departments and divisions. What works and what needs improvement?Â
- What resources are available to support faculty (e.g., CTE, faculty professional development, travel, etc.)? Are these sufficient in meeting faculty needs?Â
- Is your department actively involved in assessing student learning? How has your department used its assessment findings? What evidence do you have that students achieve your program’s intended learning outcomes?Â
- What opportunities do students in your program have to gain experience with leadership? Community or civic engagement? Diversity or multiculturalism?Â
- What is the purpose of Grace’s general education program? In what ways does the program achieve its goals for students? How could it be improved?Â
- What is the role of faculty in ensuring academic quality?Â
- Does your department offer courses or programs via distance education? If so, how does the department ensure the quality of the curriculum regardless of how or where it is delivered?Â
-
- How does your department support the academic mission of the college?Â
- What is it like to be a staff member at Grace?Â
- What opportunities do you have for professional development? Are staff members treated equitably in their access to these opportunities?Â
- How are staff evaluated at Grace? What is your impression of the evaluation process?Â
- How are staff involved in campus decision—making processes? Do you think staff have sufficient input into decisions that affect them?Â
- How would you describe the relationship between staff and administration? What works and what could be improved?Â
- What are some important benefits about working at Grace? What do you like best about your job? What would you change if you could?Â
- How do departments across campus work collaboratively? What works well and what could be improved?Â
- Do you feel that the work you do is valued by administration? Faculty? Other staff members? Students?Â
- How does your department contribute to student learning and development?Â
- How does your department assess or evaluate effectiveness?Â
-
- Why did you choose to enroll at Grace? Have your expectations been met?Â
- What do you think is special about a Grace education?Â
- Would you recommend Grace to other students?Â
- What do you like best about Grace? What would you change if you could?Â
- Have you experienced any problems getting the courses you need in a timely manner?Â
- Describe your experiences with academic advising.Â
- Do you know where to go for help with the following? (a) academic support; (b) career planning; (c) personal counseling; (e) making a complaint; (f) technology support.Â
- Do you use any of the following: library, tutoring services, dining services, Student Health, Wellness Center and Counseling & Advocacy? If yes, what has been your experience?Â
- How is the relationship between students and faculty?Â
- What opportunities do you have to participate in community or service-learning experiences? Internships? Interact with people and cultures different from your own? Gain real world experience related to your educational and career goals?Â
- If you have transferred in credits, what was the experience like for you?Â
- Do you think Grace is clear in its communication with students about topics such as financial aid, student conduct, costs, and graduation requirements? What improvements would you recommend?
HLC Visit Preparation
-
HLC Accreditation Lead Team
- Lead and direct the reaccreditation process
- Oversee the HLC Criterion Teams
- Communicate with university leadership
- Implement HLC student survey
- Coordinate the HLC site visit
- Lead preparation of institutional response to site-visit report
HLC Criterion Team
- Interpret the criteria, core components, and subcomponents
- Evaluate the 2018-2019 Assurance Argument for changes and updates
- Identify strengths, gaps, and potential strategies for improvement
- Correlate new evidence to support criteria and core components
- Submit evidence and bullet point argument draft for the 2023 Assurance Argument
-
Summer/Fall 2021
- August 19, 2021 – Faculty In-Service presentation – Standard Pathway expectations, process, and timeline
- September 2, 2021 – Deans Council – Criterion team members and leaders presented
- September 8-9, 2021 – One-on-ones with criterion team leaders
- September 13, 2021 – Criterion team assignmentsÂ
- October 4, 2021 – Criterion team orientation, begin evidence collectionÂ
- November 1, 2021 – Criterion team meeting – Collect evidence and report to criterion team
- November 29, 2021 – Criterion team meeting – Collect evidence and report to criterion team
Spring 2022
- February 14, 2022 – Criterion team meeting – Collect evidence and report to criterion team
- March 28, 2022 – Criterion team meeting – Review all evidence gathered, identify gaps; continued evidence collection
- April 25, 2022 – Criterion team meeting – Complete evidence collection and final report to lead team
Spring-Summer 2022
- Spring 2022 – Write core components drafts
- September 1, 2022 – Complete draftÂ
Fall 2022
- October 1, 2022 – Draft to Board of Trustees
- November 1, 2022 – Draft to campus communityÂ
- December 1, 2022 – Final edits
- General Employee Meetings (GEM) and school forums
- HLC Student Survey
Spring 2023
- January 30, 2023 – Assurance System lock date
- GEM and school forums
- February 27-28, 2023 – HLC on-site visitÂ
-
Criterion 1. Mission
- Mark Norris – Chair
- Jared Burkholder
- Aaron Crabtree
- Krystal Humphreys
- Ryan Johnson
- Rock LaGioia
- Heidi Miller
- Deborah Raymond
- Tyler Scott
- Kevin Voogt
Criterion 2. Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct
- Freddy Cardoza – Co-Chair
- Kevin Roberts – Co-Chair
- Kelly Arney
- Nate Bosch
- Jill Brue
- Joe Frentzel
- Martha-Elena Granados
- Christopher Moore
- Deb Musser
- Hannah Navarro
- Roger Stichter
- Christina Walters
Criterion 3. Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources and Support
- Tim Ziebarth – Chair
- Cokiesha Bailey Robinson
- Mark Bowald
- Joey Graham
- Rachael Hoffert
- Denise Lewis
- Patrick Loebs
- Alicia Meyer
- Kenneth McEwan
- Ronnie Pace
- Kim Reiff
- Lauren Rich
- Richard Roberts
Criterion 4. Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement
- Cheryl Bremer – Chair
- Tom Edgington
- Christy Hill
- Lorinda Kline
- Rick Koontz
- Brent Krammes
- Brent Mencarelli
- Jenny Preffer
- Cesar Soto
- Aaron Winey
- Andrew Zhou
Criterion 5. Institutional Effectiveness, Resources and Planning
- Jeffrey Fawcett – Chair
- Walter Brath
- Matthew Harmon
- Rhonda Ladd
- Benjamin Navarro
- Lindsey Richter
- Fred Wentorf
- Brenda Whitehead
- David Winyard
- Mike Yocum