Accreditation and Academic Program Review

As a part of the normal Open Pathway accreditation process with the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), Iowa State University successfully navigated its “Year 4 Assurance Review” in February 2020. This review was conducted by a team of peer reviewers who reviewed an updated version of Iowa State University’s Assurance Argument prepared as a part of the Higher Learning Commission Comprehensive Review that occurred during 2015-2016. We thank the members of our 2019-2020 HLC Steering Committee as well as the peer reviewer team for their outstanding work.

From Spring 2021 through Spring 2022, Iowa State commenced work on an 18 month Quality Improvement Initiative, which was approved by HLC on April 13, 2021. Recommendations from the ACE Learner Success Lab project will guide university efforts to further student success and to prepare for the 2025 HLC reaccreditation review.

Questions regarding Iowa State University’s accreditation status may be directed to Kelsey Gillen, Director of Academic Quality and Undergraduate Education, at kmgillen@iastate.edu. 

As a part of the normal Open Pathway accreditation process with the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), Iowa State University completed its “Year 4 Assurance Review” in Spring 2020. The HLC review team reviewed an updated version of the Assurance Argument (PDF) that was prepared as a part of the Higher Learning Commission Comprehensive Review that occurred during 2015-2016. 

The 2019-2020 HLC Steering Committee included the following members:

• Surya Mallapragada, Associate Vice President of Research
• Sara Marcketti, Director of Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching
• Matt Pistilli, Division of Student Affairs
• Ellen Rasmussen, Division of Finance and University Services
• Rob Schweers, Director of Communications, Office of the Senior Vice President and Provost
• Brad Skaar, Associate Professor, Animal Science, Higher Learning Commission Peer Reviewer
• Amy Slagell, Associate Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
• Ann Marie VanDerZanden, Associate Provost for Academic Programs
• Courtney Vengrin, Adjunct Assistant Professor, College of Veterinary Medicine, Chair of Faculty Senate Outcomes Assessment Committee
• Karen Zunkel, Director of Academic Quality and Undergraduate Education, Office of the Senior Vice President and Provost, Steering Committee Chair

Letter from President Leath regarding Accreditation

Iowa State understands the tremendous value of being an accredited institution as it assures the public that the University is fulfilling its responsibility for quality. Iowa State is proud of its long-standing accreditation status, dating back to 1916. Since our last reaccreditation visit in spring 2006, Iowa State has experienced record-setting achievements in such areas as student enrollment, faculty research, economic engagement, outreach, and fundraising.

These successes are a reflection of the University's unwavering commitment to its land-grant mission. Since its founding in 1864, Iowa State has been dedicated to providing access to high quality education; applying research to meet the needs of Iowa, the nation, and the world; and sharing knowledge to strengthen the economy and improve quality of life. Iowa State is also a member of the prestigious Association of American Universities, which signifies the University's strong emphasis on academic research and education.

The Assurance Argument presented below has been submitted to the Higher Learning Commission to demonstrate how Iowa State is meeting the Criteria for Accreditation.

I look forward to the results of the November 2015 site visit review and how Iowa State University can better position itself for a successful future.

Sincerely,

Steven Leath
President

Assurance Argument

(Note:  Links to evidence in the pdf files are not active, however, a list of evidence sources is provided at the end of each component.)

Criterion One. Mission

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

• 1.A. (PDF, 151KB) The institution’s mission is broadly understood within the institution and guides its operations.
• 1.B. (PDF, 131KB) The mission is articulated publicly.
• 1.C. (PDF, 155KB) The institution understands the relationship between its mission and the diversity of society.
• 1.D. (PDF, 145KB) The institution’s mission demonstrates commitment to the public good.
• Summary Criterion 1 (PDF, 94KB)

Criterion Two. Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct

The institution acts with integrity; its conduct is ethical and responsible.
Core Components

• 2.A. (PDF, 155KB) The institution operates with integrity in its financial, academic, personnel, and auxiliary functions; it establishes and follows policies and processes for fair and ethical behavior on the part of its governing board, administration, faculty, and staff.
• 2.B. (PDF, 131KB) The institution presents itself clearly and completely to its students and to the public with regard to its programs, requirements, faculty and staff, costs to students, control, and accreditation relationships.
• 2.C. (PDF, 128KB) The governing board of the institution is sufficiently autonomous to make decisions in the best interest of the institution and to assure its integrity.
• 2.D. (PDF, 107KB) The institution is committed to freedom of expression and the pursuit of truth in teaching and learning.
• 2.E. (PDF, 144KB) The institution’s policies and procedures call for responsible acquisition, discovery and application of knowledge by its faculty, students, and staff.
• Summary Criterion 2 (PDF, 90KB)

Criterion Three. Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources, and Support

The institution provides high quality education, wherever and however its offerings are delivered.
Core Components

• 3.A. (PDF, 114KB) The institution’s degree programs are appropriate to higher education.
• 3.B. (PDF, 159KB) The institution demonstrates that the exercise of intellectual inquiry and the acquisition, application, and integration of broad learning and skills are integral to its educational programs.
• 3.C. (PDF, 151KB) The institution has the faculty and staff needed for effective, high-quality programs and student services.
• 3.D. (PDF, 185KB) The institution provides support for student learning and effective teaching.
• 3.E. (PDF, 121KB) The institution fulfills the claims it makes for an enriched educational environment.
• Summary Criterion 3 (PDF, 89KB)

Criterion Four. Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement

The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs, learning environments, and support services, and it evaluates their effectiveness for student learning through processes designed to promote continuous improvement.
Core Components

• 4.A. (PDF, 146KB) The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs.
• 4.B. (PDF, 187KB) The institution demonstrates a commitment to educational achievement and improvement through ongoing assessment of student learning.
• 4.C. (PDF, 154KB) The institution demonstrates a commitment to educational improvement through ongoing attention to retention, persistence, and completion rates in its degree and certificate programs.
• Summary Criterion 4 (PDF, 96KB)

Criterion Five. Resources, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness

The institution’s resources, structures, and processes are sufficient to fulfill its mission, improve the quality of its educational offerings, and respond to future challenges and opportunities. The institution plans for the future.
Core Components

• 5.A. (PDF, 165KB) The institution’s resource base supports its current educational programs and its plans for maintaining and strengthening their quality in the future.
• 5.B. (PDF, 109KB) The institution’s governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership and support collaborative processes that enable the institution to fulfill its mission.
• 5.C. (PDF, 141KB) The institution engages in systematic and integrated planning.
• 5.D. (PDF, 168KB) The institution works systematically to improve its performance.
• Summary Criterion 5 (PDF, 95KB)

 

Iowa State University prepared for a November 2-3, 2015, accreditation visit by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC). Iowa State participated in the HLC Open Pathway accreditation process that includes four major components.

• Submission of a report on the HLC required Quality Initiative that Iowa State selected to pursue related to the systematic collection and use of graduate first-destination information (PDF).
• Submission of an Assurance Document (and related evidence) that documents how Iowa State is meeting the Criteria for Accreditation established by HLC.
• Submission of materials to demonstrate the institution’s compliance with certain Federal Requirements (see below).    
• An on-site visit by HLC peer reviewers on November 2-3, 2015.

Compliance with Federal Requirements

As a part of the accreditation process, Iowa State University must submit information (that will also be verified during the site visit) that it is in compliance with Federal requirements in the following areas:

• Assignment of Credits, Program Length, and Tuition (includes a review of sampled syllabi during site visit)
• Institutional Records of Student Complaints (includes a review of student complaint logs during site visit)
• Publication of Transfer Policies
• Practices for Verification of Student Identity
• Title IV Program Responsibilities
• Required Information for Students and the Public
• Advertising and Recruitment Materials and Other Public Information
• Review of Student Outcome Data
• Standing with State and Other Accrediting Agencies
• Public Notification of Opportunity to Comment

Complete details of the Federal Compliance Requirement are available from the HLC website.