RT @MGCollegeMAT: We're only 30 minutes away from our FREE webinar! To watch the webinar, register here: http://t.co/gR4QSgaTCU. http://t.c…
Marygrove College is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), a commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA), the largest of six regional associations, recognized by the United States Secretary of Education and the Committee on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation, whose mission is to establish standards for institutions of higher education and to ensure continuous improvement of programs.
To maintain its accreditation, every ten years Marygrove College conducts an intensive self-study following NCA’s criteria. Our last review was in 2007, which was very successful. For each review, we are required to conduct an intensive self-study and generate a report for the HLC. The Commission, in turn, will send a team of evaluators to assess what we have reported. This team will make their own report to the Commission with their recommendation.
Accreditation is enormously important to our institution for two reasons. First, accreditation is the mark of a quality educational institution. And second, every institution in the United States must be accredited for students to receive federal financial aid such as Pell Grants and Work Study funding. Without accreditation, institutions will not get that funding, and neither will their students
Five teams have been conducting self-studies corresponding to the five criteria established by NCA. The links you will find on this page will take you to a description of those criteria, a listing of the entire project’s steering committee and members of the various self-study teams, and other information about the process, including the self-study report when it is ready.
Please check back often as this Web site will change frequently as the project moves forward.
Consumer Information - Enrollment, Retention, & Graduation Rates
>> For the Accreditors: Marygrove 2007 NCA Self Study Report (pdf)
>> Executive Study of the 2007 Self Study Report
>> 1997 Self Study Report (doc)
>> NCA Quick Student Reference (pdf)
Accreditation. Got it!
Thanks to the entire Marygrove community, our visiting evaluation team is recommending our continuing 10-year accreditation by the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association. The recommendation will move through the approval channels, and later this year, we will hear the official word.
For now, let’s all celebrate…
Accreditation. Get It! Got It! Good!
Accreditation Steering Committee Members:
David Fike, President
Judith Heinen, Dean of Arts & Sciences
Donald Rizzo, Professor of Biology
Thomas Klug, Assistant Provost
Allan Cook, Assistant Professor of English
Steven Scribner, Associate Professor of Chemistry
Sally Janecek, Dean of Enrollment Services J
effrey Zachwieja, References and Electronic Services Librarian
Paulette Balich, Board of Trustees representative
Patricia McCluskey, IHM, Board of Trustees representative
Johnesa Dimicks, Institutional Research and Assessment, project co-chair
Donald Levin, Associate Professor of English, project co-chair and report writer
Criterion Team Structure:
Criterion One: Mission and Integrity
Donald Rizzo, chair
Judith Heinen, dean of arts and sciences
Jan Hunt, Director of Academic Support Programs
Marylyn Russ, IHM, Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Maryann Kummer, Executive Assistant to the President
Yesenia Lara, student
Criterion Two: Preparing for the Future
Thomas Klug, chair Jeanne Andreoli, Associate Professor of Biology
David Schulte, Director of Technology Services
Kurt Smith, Dean of Professional Studies
Sally Welch, Associate Professor of Chemistry
Criterion Three: Student Learning and Effective Teaching
Allan Cook, chair
George Alscer, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Philosophy, Pastoral Ministry
Ellen Duncan, Associate Professor of Music
Vivian Johnson, Associate Professor of Education
J.P. Song, Assistant Professor of English
Criterion Four: Acquisition, Discovery, and Application of Knowledge
Steven Scribner, chair
Anne Johnson, Director of Human Resources
Chukwunyere Okezie, Assistant Professor of Education
Loretta Woodard, Associate Professor of English
Jeffrey Zachwieja, Reference and Electronic Services Librarian
Criterion Five: Engagement and Service
Sally Janecek, chair
Sr. Barbara Beesley, Campus Ministry Associate
JoAnn Cusmano, Vice President of Institutional Advancement
Mark Jackson, Dean of Students
James Karagon, Associate Professor of Social Work
Gail McFedries, Teacher Certification Officer
Diane Puhl, Director of Alumni Relations
Martha Rowland, Assistant Dean of Continuing Education and Community Services
Criterion One: Mission & Integrity
The organization operates with integrity to ensure the fulfillment of its mission through structures and processes that involve the board, administration, faculty, staff, and students.
Core Component 1a
The organization's mission documents are clear and articulate publicly the organization's commitments. Examples of Evidence
Core Component 1b
In its mission documents, the organization recognizes the diversity of its learners, other constituencies, and the greater society it serves.
Examples of Evidence
Core Component 1c
Understanding of and support for the mission pervade the organization.
Examples of Evidence
Core Component 1e
The organization upholds and protects its integrity.
Examples of Evidence
PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE
Criterion Two: Preparing for the Future
The organization's allocation of resources and its processes for evaluation and planning demonstrate its capacity to fulfill its mission, improve the quality of its education, and respond to future challenges and opportunities.
Core Component 2a
The organization realistically prepares for a future shaped by multiple societal and economic trends.
Examples of Evidence
Core Component 2b
The organization's resource base supports its educational programs and its plans for maintaining and strengthening their quality in the future.
Examples of Evidence
Core Component 2c
The organization's ongoing evaluation and assessment processes provide reliable evidence of institutional effectiveness that clearly informs strategies for continuous improvement.
Examples of Evidence
Core Component 2d
All levels of planning align with the organization's mission, thereby enhancing its capacity to fulfill that mission.
Examples of Evidence
STUDENT LEARNING AND EFFECTIVE TEACHING
Criterion Three: Student Learning & Effective Teaching
The organization provides evidence of student learning and teaching effectiveness that demonstrates it is fulfilling its educational mission.
Core Component 3a
The organization's goals for student learning outcomes are clearly stated for each educational program and make effective assessment possible.
Examples of Evidence
Core Component 3b
The organization values and supports effective teaching.
Examples of Evidence
Core Component 3c
The organization creates effective learning environments.
Examples of Evidence
Core Component 3d
The organization's learning resources support student learning and effective teaching.
Examples of Evidence
ACQUISITION, DISCOVERY AND APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE
Criterion Four: Acquisition, Discovery, and the Application of Knowledge
The organization promotes a life of learning for its faculty, administration, staff, and students by fostering and supporting inquiry, creativity, practice, and social responsibility in ways consistent with its mission. Core
Component 4a
The organization demonstrates, through the actions of its board, administrators, students, faculty, and staff, that it values a life of learning.
Examples of Evidence
Core Component 4b
The organization demonstrates that acquisition of a breadth of knowledge and skills and the exercise of intellectual inquiry are integral to its educational programs.
Examples of Evidence
Core Component 4c
The organization assesses the usefulness of its curricula to students who will live and work in a global, diverse, and technological society.
Examples of Evidence
Core Component 4d
The organization provides support to ensure that faculty, students, and staff acquire, discover, and apply knowledge responsibly.
Examples of Evidence
ENGAGEMENT AND SERVICE
Criterion Five: Engagement and Service
As called for by its mission, the organization identifies its constituencies and serves them in ways both value.
Core Component 5a
The organization learns from the constituencies it serves and analyzes its capacity to serve their needs and expectations.
Examples of Evidence
Core Component 5b
The organization has the capacity and the commitment to engage with it identified constituencies and communities.
Examples of Evidence
Core Component 5c
The organization demonstrates its responsiveness to those constituencies that depend on it for service.
Examples of Evidence
Core Component 5d
Internal and external constituencies value the services the organization provides.
Examples of Evidence
Four Cross-Cutting Themes
The four cross-cutting themes are present in all the criteria studied for reaccreditation. In identifying these themes, the Commission had several purposes in mind:
Goals of the Self-Study Project
The Steering Committee has agreed on the following goals for the Marygrove College Accreditation Project. These capture the overall direction of the self-study process as it has unfolded, and will guide our efforts.
Self Study Report & Executive Summary
Here are drafts of Marygrove’s self study report and executive summary. Please email your comments to Dr. Donald Levin ( This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ) or Johnesa Dimicks ( This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ), co-chairs of the self-study project.
>> Executive Summary (168Kb .doc)
>> Draft chapter 1 (142 Kb .doc)
>> Draft chapter 2 changes since 1997 (.doc)
>> Draft chapter 3 responses to 1997 report (.doc)
>> Draft chapter 4 institutional overview (189 Kb .doc)
>> Draft chapter 5 criterion 1 (249 Kb .doc)
>> Draft chapter 6 criterion 2 (300 Kb .doc)
>> Draft chapter 7 criterion 3 (633 Kb .doc)
>> Draft chapter 8 criterion 4 (372 Kb .doc)