Accreditation & Student Success

For its next accreditation, Northwestern Oklahoma State University will be taking part in the Higher Learning Commission’s Open Pathways Ten Year Cycle. The Open Pathway is designed for institutions that have completed at least one pathway cycle and are otherwise eligible to choose their pathway. It supports the pursuit of innovative or strategic improvement projects, known as Quality Initiatives. Institutions undergo a virtual review in Year 4 and a comprehensive evaluation in Year 10.

OPEN PATHWAY REVIEW

Year 4: Mid-cycle Assurance Review
What to expect: What to expect: Peer reviewers evaluate the institution based on HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation and other requirements. The review occurs virtually, without a visit to campus.

Years 5–9: Quality Initiative
What to expect: Institutions design and implement a project to improve an aspect of their organization, or to pursue a strategic initiative. Institutions submit a project proposal between Years 5 and 7, and then report on the outcomes between Years 7 and 9. Peer reviewers evaluate the project proposal and outcomes report.

Year 10: Comprehensive Evaluation for Reaffirmation of Accreditation
What to expect: At the end of the Year 10 evaluation process, HLC determines whether the institution’s accreditation should be reaffirmed. Institutions are evaluated based on HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation and other requirements. Peer reviewers review materials, visit campus and consider feedback from students and community members. The team also reviews the institution’s compliance with certain federal requirements.

Below is a link to the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) website that explains Open Pathways Accreditation process in much greater detail:

https://www.hlcommission.org/Pathways/open-pathway-cycle.html

Institutions with three or more off-campus additional locations are required to undergo a Multi-Location Visit every five years.  The purpose of the Multi-Location Visit is to confirm the continuing effective oversight by the institution of its additional locations.

NWOSU Multi-Location Report

HLC Approval Letter

The Open Pathway requires an institution to designate one major improvement effort it has undertaken during its 10-year accreditation cycle as its Quality Initiative.  The Quality Initiative is intended to allow institutions to take risks, aim high and learn from only partial success or even failure. 

NWOSU Qualitiy Initiative Proposal

NWOSU Quality Initiative Report

HLC Approval Letter

The Criteria for Accreditation are the standards of quality by which HLC determines whether an institution merits accreditation or reaffirmation of accreditation. They are as follows:

Criterion 1. Mission

The institution’s mission is clear and articulated publicly; it guides the institution’s operations.

As noted above in Institutional Mission, an institution’s distinctive mission will inform how it demonstrates that it meets the following Core Components of Criterion 1.

1.A. Mission Alignment

The institution’s educational programs, enrollment profile and scope of operations align with its publicly articulated mission.

1.B. Mission and Public Good

The institution’s operation of the academic enterprise demonstrates its commitment to serving the public good.

1.C. Mission and Diversity of Society

The institution provides opportunities for civic engagement in a diverse, multicultural society and globally connected world, as appropriate within its mission and for the constituencies it serves.

Criterion 2. Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct

In fulfilling its mission, the institution acts with integrity; its conduct is ethical and responsible.

As noted above in Institutional Mission, an institution’s distinctive mission will inform how it demonstrates that it meets the following Core Components of Criterion 2.

2.A. Integrity

Actions taken by the institution’s governing board, administration, faculty and staff demonstrate adherence to established policies and procedures.

2.B. Transparency

The institution presents itself accurately and completely to students and the public with respect to its educational programs and any claims it makes related to the educational experience.

2.C. Board Governance

In discharging its fiduciary duties, the institution’s governing board is free from undue external influence and empowered to act in the best interests of the institution, including the students it serves.

2.D. Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression

The institution supports academic freedom and freedom of expression in the pursuit of knowledge as integral to high-quality teaching, learning and research.

2.E. Knowledge Acquisition, Discovery and Application

The institution adheres to policies and procedures that ensure responsible acquisition, discovery and application of knowledge.

Criterion 3. Teaching and Learning for Student Success

The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs, learning environments and support services, and it evaluates their effectiveness in fulfilling its mission. The rigor and quality of each educational program is consistent regardless of modality, location or other differentiating factors.

As noted above in Institutional Mission, an institution’s distinctive mission will inform how it demonstrates that it meets the following Core Components of Criterion 3.

3.A. Educational Programs

The institution maintains learning goals and outcomes that reflect a level of rigor commensurate with college-level work, including by program level and the content of each of its educational programs.

3.B. Exercise of Intellectual Inquiry

The institution’s educational programs engage students in collecting, analyzing and communicating information; in practicing modes of intellectual inquiry or creative work; and in developing skills adaptable to changing environments.

3.C. Sufficiency of Faculty and Staff

The institution has the faculty and staff needed for effective, high-quality programs and student services.

3.D. Support for Student Learning and Resources for Teaching

The institution provides student support services that address the needs of its student populations, as well as the teaching resources and infrastructure necessary for student success.

3.E. Assessment of Student Learning

The institution improves the quality of educational programs based on its assessment of student learning.

3.F. Program Review

The institution improves its curriculum based on periodic program review.

3.G. Student Success Outcomes

The institution’s student success outcomes demonstrate continuous improvement, taking into account the student populations it serves and benchmarks that reference peer institutions.

Criterion 4. Sustainability: Institutional Effectiveness, Resources and Planning

The institution’s resources, structures, policies, procedures and planning enable it to fulfill its mission, improve the quality of its educational programs, and respond to future challenges and opportunities.

As noted above in Institutional Mission, an institution’s distinctive mission will inform how it demonstrates that it meets the following Core Components of Criterion 4.

4.A. Effective Administrative Structures

The institution’s administrative structures are effective and facilitate collaborative processes such as shared governance; data-informed decision making; and engagement with internal and external constituencies as appropriate.

4.B. Resource Base and Sustainability

The institution’s financial and personnel resources effectively support its current operations. The institution’s financial management balances short-term needs with long-term commitments and ensures its ongoing sustainability.

4.C. Planning for Quality Improvement

The institution engages in systematic strategic planning for quality improvement. It relies on data, integrating its insights from enrollment forecasts, financial capacity, student learning assessment, institutional operations and the external environment.

 

HLC conducts an Assurance Review to determine whether an institution on the Standard or Open Pathway continues to meet teh Criteria for Accreditation.  On the Open Pathway, the Assurance Review is conducted by itself in Year 4 and is a part of the comprehensive evaluation that occurs in Year 10.

2024 Assurance Argument

2018 NWOSU 4-year Assurance Review

Assurance Review Approval Letter

NWOSU HLC Committee Members

HLC Steering Committee

Member	Title
James Bell	Vice President for Academic Affairs
Kaylyn Hansen	Director of Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness/Academic Support/Senior Woman Administrator
Shawn Holliday	Associate Dean of Graduate Studies
Steven Maier	Dean of Faculty

 

Criterion 1 – Mission

Member	Title
Kaylyn Hansen (Chair)	Director of Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness/Academic Support/Senior Woman Administrator
Jonathan Thomason (Chair)	Dean, Woodward Campus
Angelia Case	Academic Projects Assistant/Media Specialist
Erika Hernandez	Student
Steve Lohmann	Community Member
Dean Scarbrough	Chair, Department of Agriculture/Professor of Agriculture
Martie Young	Professor of Education

 

Criterion 2 – Integrity:  Ethical and Responsible Conduct

Member	Title
Cheryl Ellis (Chair)	Human Resources Director
Shawn Holliday (Chair)	Associate Dean of Graduate Studies
Valarie Case	Assistant Director of University Relations
Tara Hannaford	Director of Financial Aid/Scholarships
Tandy Keenan	Director of Sponsored Programs
Jane McDermott	Community Member
Wayne McMillin	Dean, Enid Campus
Austin Rankin	Student
Kylene Rehder	Chair, Department of Social Work/Professor of Social Work
Dena Walker	Associate Professor of Mathematics

 

Criterion 3 – Teaching and Learning:  Quality, Resources, and Support

Member	Title
James Bell (Chair)	Vice President for Academic Affairs
Piper Robida (Chair)	Assistant Professor of Biology
Melissa Brown	Graduate Studies Coordinator
Rhonda Cook	Community Member
Mindi Clark	Associate Professor of Agriculture
Sheri Lahr	Registrar
Steven Mackie	Professor of Education
Steven Maier	Dean of Faculty
Venkata Moorthy	Professor of Biology
Kinsey Neiderer	Student
Debbie Skinner	Administrative Assistant

 

Criterion 4 – Teaching and Learning:  Evaluation and Improvement

Member	Title
Shannon Leaper (Chair)	Library Services Director
Calleb Mosburg (Chair)	Dean of Student Affairs and Enrollment Management
Matt Adair	Assistant Dean of Student Affairs and Recruitment
Jake Boedecker	Director of Online Services
Ryan Bowen	Head Baseball Coach
Brad Franz	Director of Athletics
Karsten Longhurst	Assistant Professor of Music
Shayna Miller	Student
Mary Riegel	Professor of Mathematics
Linda Tutwiler	Community Member
Olivia Yandel	Director, J.R. Holder Wellness Center

 

Criterion 5 – Institutional Effectiveness, Resources, and Planning

Member	Title
Sadie Bier (Chair)	Comptroller
David Pecha (Chair)	Executive Vice President
Holli Black	Student
Paige Fischer	Bursar
Garret Lahr	Chair of the Division of Business/Assistant Professor of Business
Tim Lauderdale	Associate Director of Athletics for Internal Operations
Dana Roark	Instructor of Business
Doug VanMeter	Community Member
Lisa Vermillion	Administrative Assistant