2025 Criteria For Accreditation FAQs
The Criteria for Accreditation convey the standards of quality by which HLC determines whether an institution merits accreditation or reaffirmation of accreditation. In June 2024, HLC’s Board of Trustees adopted revisions to the Criteria, Assumed Practices and Evaluative Framework for the Criteria that go into effect September 1, 2025. The current Criteria remain in effect until that date.
The Evaluation Process
A: No changes are expected to the on-site activities for comprehensive evaluations. The engagement between the peer review team and institutional representatives may include requests for additional information or documents. The team always has the opportunity to ask for additional information in preparation for the visit and while on site.
A: One tool provided by HLC to help institutions transition to the new Criteria is the Crosswalk. It will help you repurpose your Assurance Argument from Year 10 to the Argument for Year 4.
A: One tool provided by HLC to help institutions transition to the new Criteria is the Crosswalk. It will help you repurpose your Assurance Argument from Year 10 to the Argument for Year 4.
A: Institutions with on-site visits that begin on or after September 1, 2025, should write their Assurance Arguments using the revised Criteria even though their Assurance Arguments are due before this date.
A: Yes.
A: In Spring 2025, access will be granted to Assurance Filings in Canopy for institutions with evaluations in AY 2025–26 and 2026–27. The current system will be sunset after reviews conducted during the 2024–25 academic year are complete.
Much of the functionality in the new Assurance Filing section of Canopy will be familiar to current Assurance System and Canopy users, and HLC will provide training and support for institutions and peer reviewers.
Evidence to Support the Argument
A: HLC will provide sample Assurance Arguments starting in 2026. This will be the earliest we will have Assurance Arguments written to the revised Criteria for Accreditation that have completed their review process.
A: The crosswalk already exists and is available on HLC’s website.
A: HLC’s Providing Evidence is a great resource for any questions regarding evidence in the Assurance Argument.
A: The new Assurance Filing is being built to work similarly to the current Assurance Filing. Users will also have webinars and user guides to help them work in the new system. In addition, the crosswalk already exists and is available on HLC’s website.
A: HLC reviews the federal compliance requirements and make updates each March that will be applicable in the following September.
A: Yes, evidence will need to be provided as PDF files. The Assurance Argument is a snapshot in time, live links will not maintain the content over time.
A: The Assurance Filing in Canopy is intended to help simplify the process.
A: Both! A definition of how the institution defines shared governance would provide clarity for the peer reviewers evaluating the evidence of how the institution implements shared governance.
Removal of the Subcomponents
A: The same way you addressed Assumed Practices before. Every institution is expected to be in compliance with all Assumed Practices at all times. Because institutions are assumed to be adhering to the Assumed Practices on an ongoing basis, peer review teams will not review their compliance with these requirements except as described in policy.
A: HLC defines cocurricular as “Learning activities, programs and experiences that reinforce the institution’s mission and values and complement the formal curriculum. Examples: Study abroad, student-faculty research experiences, service learning, professional clubs or organizations, honor societies, etc.”
Cocurricular activities are not necessarily “all activities that fall outside of the classroom,” but are best understood as activities that usually take place outside of conventional classrooms and labs that are deliberately designed to impart, reinforce or measure the learning outcomes for specific programs or general education.
An institution is obligated to assess the learning outcomes it claims for cocurricular offerings and emphasize the engagement of faculty, instructional and other relevant staff members in assessment processes.
Institutions determine for themselves, based on their mission, what they deem to be cocurricular, as an essential part of, or partner to, their curricular activities (as opposed to “extra-” curricular).
A: Yes! The revised Assumed Practices are available on the website.
A: The revised Assumed Practices are available on the website.
A: HLC’s Providing Evidence for the Revised Criteria offers guidance for institutions regarding all of the Criteria.
A: Subcomponents were intended to be examples of potential aspects of each Core Component that were only relevant to the extent applicable to the institution. However, as both a substantive and a structural matter, the subcomponents created confusion for institutions and peer reviewers.
Concepts from the subcomponents were handled in three ways:
- One subcomponent was integrated into the revised Criteria
- Some subcomponents were relocated to the revised Assumed Practices:
- Some concepts from other subcomponents have been relocated, with refinements as appropriate, to an expanded and updated version of the Providing Evidence for the Criteria for Accreditation.
A: Yes. Institutions do not need to write to the Assumed Practices in their Assurance Arguments unless required by policy. Peer reviewers may ask for information about the Assumed Practices if during their review they identify a gap in information or a concern that may be relate to the Assumed Practice.
A: The Criteria revision did not change anything related to general education. The previous mentions of general education were in subcomponents, which have always been examples and not applicable to all institutions. So the removal of the subcomponents does not change the Criteria for Accreditation with regard to general education.
Specific to assessment processes, irrespective of how formally or informally an institution designs or selects its general education program or courses, the institution must demonstrate its quality and rigor in a manner that is consistent with its assessment of program learning outcomes.
Mission-Reflective Approach
A: HLC’s Providing Evidence for the Revised Criteria offers guidance for institutions regarding all of the Criteria.
A: Mission is foundational to an institution’s curriculum, instructional activities and the success of its students. Mission further informs an institution’s research and innovation pursuits, its community engagement activities and services, its role within the higher education ecosystem, its student body, and its decisions regarding operations and resource allocations. An institution’s distinctive mission is the cornerstone around which the institution’s effectiveness, integrity and commitment to continuous improvement are evaluated.
When demonstrating that it meets the Criteria for Accreditation, an institution has the opportunity to reflect on the significance of its distinctive mission as well as across the wider higher education landscape. Against these backdrops, the institution is able to speak to its current state, aspirations and plans for the future.
Specifically, the distinctiveness of an institution’s mission may inform the strategies it adopts and the evidence it provides to demonstrate that it meets each Criterion and Core Component. In preparing for a review, an institution may provide evidence relevant to additional topics related to a Core Component beyond those specified in any HLC resource document. During the review process, peer reviewers will determine whether an institution meets the Criteria and Core Components on the basis of such evidence.
Consolidated Criterion on Teaching and Learning
A: HLC defines “educational program” the same as the federal definition:
- A legally authorized postsecondary program of organized instruction or study that:
- Leads to an academic, professional, or vocational degree, or certificate, or other recognized educational credential, or is a comprehensive transition and postsecondary program, as described in 34 CFR part 668, subpart O; and
- May, in lieu of credit hours or clock hours as a measure of student learning, utilize direct assessment of student learning, or recognize the direct assessment of student learning by others, if such assessment is consistent with the accreditation of the institution or program utilizing the results of the assessment and with the provisions of 34 CFR § 668.10.
- HLC does not consider that an institution provides an educational program if the institution does not provide instruction itself (including a course of independent study) but merely gives credit for one or more of the following: Instruction provided by other institutions or schools; examinations or direct assessments provided by agencies or organizations; or other accomplishments such as “life experience.”
“Educational program” is synonymous with HLC’s use of the terms “academic offering(s),” “academic program(s)” and “educational offering(s).”
A: Core Component 3.E. states “the institution improves the quality of educational programs based on its assessment of student learning.” The narrative and supporting evidence should demonstrate that the institution meets this core component. Although HLC Criteria for Accreditation clearly address an expectation of institution-wide continuous improvement, improving the quality of educational programs speaks most directly to the assessment of learning outcomes at the programmatic level and in general education.
A: Program review encompasses the way in which your institution defines program review. Institutions have widely varying processes and timelines for program review. Common components include data related to enrollment, retention and completion rates, program cost and other fiscal information, occupational demand, improvements made based upon student learning and alumni feedback, evidence related to the program’s alignment with the institution’s mission, actions taken as a result of programmatic accreditation or other forms of external review, and so on. HLC proscribes neither the process, metrics, nor timeline for effective program review, but it anticipates that program review is key cyclical function for institutional improvement.
A: HLC’s Providing Evidence for the Revised Criteria offers guidance for institutions regarding all of the Criteria.
A: Institutions identify their own peer institutions for setting their own benchmarks on student success outcomes that are most relevant to their mission and study body. In addition, check out HLC’s website for proposed policies and procedures on student success outcomes.
A: The institution identifies its own peer institutions.
A: Institutions identify their own peer institutions for setting their own benchmarks on student success outcomes that are most relevant to their mission and study body. In addition, check out HLC’s initiatives on student success outcomes for proposed policies and procedures related to student success.
A: Yes! In addition, check out HLC’s initiatives on student success outcomes for proposed policies and procedures related to student success.
HLC will not require institutions to demonstrate their compliance with revised Core Component 3.G. by using the same measures, benchmarks or peer groups that HLC uses to evaluate the student success indicators. Instead, institutions may develop their own more customized benchmarking activities using other data points and peer institutions. As is the case with all Core Components, an institution’s distinctive mission will inform how it demonstrates that it meets Core Component 3.G. HLC’s Providing Evidence for the Revised Criteria offers guidance for institutions regarding all of the Criteria.
A: In consolidating the previous Criterion 3 and 4 into a single Criterion (i.e., the new Criterion 3), HLC did not opine on whether more or less evidence will be needed. Each institution has always determined for itself the sufficiency of evidence to demonstrate its effectiveness. However, throughout the revised Criteria, it is anticipated that institutions will be able to demonstrate a greater breadth of sustained improvement based upon data collection and analysis over time, as opposed to episodic activity related to data collection, analysis, and aspirational improvement.
A: Since the institution identifies a different level of achievement, there will be an expectation of different learning outcomes, namely more for the associates degree.
In cases where a certificate stands separate and apart from a related degree program, institutions have long specified discrete learning outcomes for student learning for the purpose of continuous improvement. These outcomes are often closely aligned with those for the degree program yet recognize the certificate as a separate credential such that student learning is assessed and curricular improvement processes are engaged.
In the case of an embedded certificate, the institution should still be able to document the learning that has occurred as part of the “stop-out” credential for purposes curricular improvement and enhanced student learning.
A: HLC’s Providing Evidence for the Revised Criteria offers guidance for institutions regarding all of the Criteria. HLC will again provide sample Assurance Arguments in 2026, after the first evaluations addressing the revised Criteria for Accreditation are completed.
A: An institution is only obligated to assess the learning outcomes it claims for cocurricular offerings; and emphasize the engagement of faculty, instructional and other relevant staff members in assessment processes. Accordingly, institutions are expected to collect any data called for by their cocurricular assessment processes. Because institutions are assumed to be adhering to the Assumed Practices on an ongoing basis, peer review teams will not review their compliance with these requirements except as described in policy.
Institutions determine for themselves, based on their mission, what they deem to be cocurricular, as an essential part of, or partner to, their curricular activities (as opposed to “extra-” curricular).
A: HLC’s Providing Evidence for the Revised Criteria offers guidance for institutions regarding all of the Criteria.
A: HLC’s Providing Evidence for the Revised Criteria offers guidance for institutions regarding all of the Criteria.
A: HLC’s Criteria about faculty has not changed. See our guidelines on dual credit and determining faculty qualifications for additional information.
A: HLC is an institutional accreditor and evaluates the institution as a whole. If an institution has policy for and implements different assessment plans for different programs at an institution, the institution will need to demonstrate how it “improves the quality of educational programs based on its assessment of student learning” (Core Component 3.D.) for the entire institution.
For purposes of improved student learning, HLC’s focus on assessment has always been at the program level. Course level assessment necessarily informs program level assessment. Nevertheless, HLC’s peer reviewers are trained to focus their reviews and recommendations at the program level. Inquiries related to course level assessment are for the purpose of understanding better the procedures, practices, and outcomes at the program level.
A: HLC is an institutional accreditor and evaluates the institution as a whole. If an institution has policy for and implements different assessment plans for different programs at an institution, the institution will need to demonstrate how it “improves the quality of educational programs based on its assessment of student learning” (Core Component 3.D.) for the entire institution.
Yes, the different colleges and schools that comprise a university often have different approaches toward assessment. These variations are less important than the university’s ability to demonstrate that the varying approaches are effective in enhancing student learning and fostering program improvement. It’s common for the central administration to identify with faculty some core learning outcomes that are common to all programs, leaving others to be tailored to the needs of the various colleges and schools. Whatever the institution’s approach, it must be able to explain and justify its practices related to assessment of student learning.
Peer Reviewer Training
A: Peer reviewers are trained to use judgment in determining whether the institution meets the Criteria for Accreditation with the evidence that has been provided.
A: Yes, the revised Criteria will be addressed during the Peer Corps Training and Updates Pre-Conference Program.
A: Peer reviewers have access to the historical relationship of the institution with HLC. They are not required to read a prior Assurance Argument, but this reading typically occurs to foster increased understanding of the institution’s progression from one accreditation review to the next.
