CCS’s Reaffirmation of Accreditation through the Higher Learning Commission
Welcome
College for Creative Studies (CCS) is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) and is on the Open Pathway. This accreditation is reaffirmed every 10 years via a quality assurance and institutional improvement review. The Open Pathway designation is unique from the Standard Pathway in that its improvement component, the Quality Initiative, provides the opportunity to pursue improvement projects that meet their current needs and aspirations, while continuing to focus on quality assurance. CCS has been accredited by HLC since April 13, 1977.
This site will contain all new information related to the College’s 2025 Reaffirmation of Accreditation process. Please visit CCS’s Accreditation page to learn more about the institution’s general accreditation information.
HLC Third Party Feedback
The Higher Learning Commission (HLC) invites students, alumni, community members, and other third-party constituencies to submit comments about an institution prior to its campus visit. It is anticipated that this campus visit will take place in fall 2025 or winter 2026. Submitted comments will be forwarded by HLC to the institution and review team members as long as they are received four weeks or more prior to the on-site review. HLC cannot guarantee that comments received after the due date will be forwarded to the team and institution in time for consideration during the evaluation.
During this campus visit, a team of peer reviewers trained and coordinated by HLC will evaluate CCS’s current and future capacities to meet HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation.
HLC Feedback Form
Please feel free to provide feedback regarding CCS’s reaffirmation of accreditation.
What is Reaffirmation?
Reaffirmation of Accreditation requires the institution to provide evidence of how it meets the Higher Learning Commission’s (HLC’s) Criteria for Accreditation, as well as Federal Compliance Requirements. This process includes the submission of an Assurance Argument and a Federal Compliance filing. After both are submitted, a team of peer reviewers trained and coordinated by HLC will visit the College for Creative Studies campus to confirm that the material submitted is accurate and thorough.
When (and What) is Happening?
Timeline
Summer 2023
-
Create outlines for each criterion
Fall 2023 – Collect Data
-
April 2023 – Set up Google Drive
-
April 2023 – Communication to campus
-
June-December 2023 – Collect campus information
Winter/Summer/Fall 2024 – Assurance Argument First Draft Writing
-
January 2024 – All information due
-
February-October 2024 – First draft written and revised in accordance with new HLC criteria
-
November-December 2024 – First draft sent to leadership for edits
Winter 2025 – Assurance Argument First Draft Feedback and Revision
-
January 2025 – First draft of Assurance Argument communicated to campus community
-
January-February 2025 – Campus feedback opportunities
-
February 2025 – Steering Committee Review of feedback
-
March-April 2025 – Second draft ready for consideration by campus community; feedback provided through form
-
March 2025 – Outline Federal Compliance Argument and assign sections
Summer 2025 – Writing Federal Compliance First Draft and Assurance Argument Second Draft
-
July 2025 – Federal Compliance first draft sent to Leadership Team
-
August 2025 – Federal Compliance first draft sent to Federal Compliance internal Committee
-
September 2025 – Internal Committee Feedback via Zoom and feedback form
-
September-October 2025 – Assurance Argument evidence linkage
Fall 2025 – Writing Federal Compliance Second Draft and Assurance Argument Third Draft
-
September 2025 – Steering Committee review of both documents
-
October 2025 – Third Assurance Argument draft completed and communicated
-
November 2025 – Federal Compliance second draft writing
-
December 2025 – Assurance Argument campus community feedback opportunity
Winter 2026 – Visit Preparation, Final Draft Editing, and Submission
-
January 2026 – Visit preparation meetings with stakeholder groups
-
February-March 2026 – Editing, One-Voice, Evidence, Cover Pages
March 30, 2026 – Assurance Argument complete (lock date)
How are people involved?
CCS Assurance Argument Committee
Members
- Dean of Academic Affairs Nadine Ashton (Chair)
- Graduate Studies Executive Assistant Jill Davis
- Director of Student Engagement Katie Gaither
- Database and Donor Relations Coordinator Ruthie Graff
- Liberal Arts Associate Professor Lisa Catani
- Vice President of Finance Kerri McKay
- Executive Director of Office of Partnerships Shannon McPartlon
- Dean of Undergraduate Studies and Art Education Associate Professor and Chair Amy Ruopp
- Director of Transfer and Academic Partnerships Amber Thomas
- Director of Academic Planning and Effectiveness Ashlei Watson (Vice-Chair)
- Director of Educational Technology and Innovation Carl Weckerle
- Transportation Design Assistant Professor Jason White
Responsibilities
- Writes narrative content using evidence and input collected from institution staff, faculty, and Board members.
- Prepares submissions and evidence files
- Provides project management for the endeavor
- Identify institutional gaps and develop proposals to meet criteria requirements
- Participate in on-site peer review team visit
- Engagement Expectation: Attend meetings, draft argument, communicate with campus community, collect evidence, revise drafts in accordance with input, submit Assurance Argument and Federal Compliance report.
CCS Executive Editors
Members
- Leadership Team – Olga, Tracy, Tim, Carla, Kerri
Responsibilities
- Review completed drafts
- Provide guidance for Assurance Argument Committee and support/enforce engagement related to evidence and information collection
- Support efforts to fill recognized institutional gaps
- Participate in on-site peer review team visit
- Engagement Expectation: Review and provide input on drafts
CCS Community and Board Members
Responsibilities
- Provide related evidence and information as requested
- Review completed drafts
- Offer insight on areas of the report where not directly providing information and evidence
- Participate in on-site peer reviewer team visit
- Engagement Expectation: Review and provide input on drafts