Statement of Accreditation Status
as of December 12, 2019
Central Baptist Theological Seminary
6601 Monticello Road
Shawnee, KS 66226-3513
(913) 667-5700
www.cbts.edu
The information on this page describes the accreditation relationship between this institution and the Higher Learning Commission. General information about the Commission and the accreditation process is provided at the end of this document. In addition, links to definitions are provided for many of the terms used.
Accreditation Information
Current status: Accredited
| Candidacy date(s): | 04/13/1977 - 07/22/1979 |
| Accreditation granted: | 07/23/1979 |
Most recent reaffirmation of accreditation: 2018 - 2019
• Action Letter (PDF)
Next reaffirmation of accreditation: 2028 - 2029
Upcoming or In-Progress Reviews
| Date | Event | Description |
| 08/02/2019: | Monitoring, Financial Indicator | |
| 12/01/2020: | Interim Report | Finances/Audit |
| 2022 - 2023: | Comprehensive Evaluation | |
| 2028 - 2029: | Comprehensive Evaluation | |
Most Recent History with the Commission
| Date | Event | Description |
| 12/03/2018: | Comprehensive Evaluation | Interim Report Requested |
| 08/08/2018: | Monitoring, Financial Indicator | |
| 01/23/2017: | Interim Report | Report Accepted- Non-Financial Indicators |
| 05/16/2016: | Monitoring, Non-financial Indicator | Interim Report Requested |
| 03/09/2015: | Comprehensive Evaluation | Interim Report Requested - The readers reviewed the teams work and evidence and did not concur that the individual items rose to the level of formal monitoring. The visiting team rendered excellent advice to the institution on a number of critical issues that need to be addressed. However, the overall evidence presented suggests that Central Baptist Theological Seminary possesses the mechanisms and the people to address most of these recommended improvements internally without a Commission mandate for multiple monitoring reports. Moreover, many of the needed improvements identified by the team revolve around or emanate from the institution's financial status and its consequent resource limitations that are well documented by the team in its review of Criterion Five. Monitoring is clearly required for core component Criterion Five-A concerns, as expressed under the recommended action above. |
| 12/19/2011: | Reaffirmation of Accreditation (PEAQ) | |
| 10/18/2010: | Financial Panel Recommendation | Added Monitoring report on finances |
| 08/28/2009: | Focused Evaluations - Commission Mandated | |
| 02/06/2007: | Comprehensive Evaluation - Continued Accreditation | |
General Institutional Information
This section provides brief, general information about the institution’s organization and scope. The information is self-reported by the institution through the annual Institutional Update to the Commission. Additional information can be found at nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/ or on the institution’s web site noted above.
Control: Private NFP
Degree programs (number in each category): Masters (4), Doctoral (1)
Certificate programs (number offered): 1
Off-Campus Activities (This listing was last updated: 10/27/2017; the information may not be current.) The institution’s accreditation includes courses and programs at:
| In-State: | Campuses: | None.
|
||
| Additional Locations: | None. | |||
| Out-of-State: | Campuses: | None. | ||
| Additional Locations: | CBTS – Ann Arbor - Ann Arbor, MI; CBTS -- Dallas, Semihan - Carrolton, TX; Milwaukee - Elm Grove, WI; Dallas - Farmers Branch, TX; Federal Way - Federal Way, WA; CBTS -- Houston - Houston, TX; Los Angeles - Los Angeles, CA; Scarritt-Bennett Center - Nashville, TN; CBTS -- St. Louis - St. Louis, MO; | |||
| Out-of-U.S.: | Campuses: | None. | ||
| Additional Locations: | None. | |||
| Location | Campuses | Additional Locations |
| In-State: | None. | None. |
| Out-of-State: | None. | CBTS – Ann Arbor - Ann Arbor, MI; CBTS -- Dallas, Semihan - Carrolton, TX; Milwaukee - Elm Grove, WI; Dallas - Farmers Branch, TX; Federal Way - Federal Way, WA; CBTS -- Houston - Houston, TX; Los Angeles - Los Angeles, CA; Scarritt-Bennett Center - Nashville, TN; CBTS -- St. Louis - St. Louis, MO; |
| Out-of-U.S.: | None. | None. |
About HLC and Accreditation
The Higher Learning Commission (HLC) is a regional accreditation agency that accredits degree-granting colleges and universities that are based in a 19-state region of the United States.
Regional accreditation validates the quality of an institution as a whole and evaluates multiple aspects of an institution, including its academic offerings, governance and administration, mission, finances, and resources. HLC’s institutional accreditation includes all degree levels as well as onsite and online offerings. Institutions of higher education in the United States may also seek accreditation through national or specialized accreditation agencies. National accreditation associations, like regional accreditors, accredit the institution as a whole. Specialized accreditation agencies accredit programs, departments or schools within a college or university.
Regional accreditation agencies are recognized by the U.S. Department of Education to accredit degree-granting colleges and universities. There are six regions of the United States which regional agencies oversee. The regional accreditation agencies have similar standards for accrediting colleges and universities.
Institutions that HLC accredits are evaluated against its Criteria for Accreditation, a set of standards that institutions must meet to receive and/or maintain accredited status.
HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation reflect a set of guiding values. The accreditation process is based on a system of peer review. Approximately 1,600 educators from institutions of higher education serve as HLC peer reviewers conducting accreditation evaluations for other institutions. Peer reviewers also serve on committees that make up the decision-making bodies of the accreditation process.
Evaluation Process
HLC accreditation assures quality by verifying that an institution (1) meets standards and (2) is engaged in continuous improvement. In addition, all institutions are required to complete an annual filing of the Institutional Update, undergo annual monitoring of financial and non-financial indicators, and adhere to HLC policies and practices on institutional change.
Peer reviewers trained in HLC’s standards evaluate institutions’ demonstration of whether they meet the Criteria for Accreditation and make recommendations to HLC’s decision-making bodies.
Institutional Actions Council (Decision-Making Body)
The Board of Trustees appoints and authorizes members of the Institutional Actions Council (IAC) to conduct reviews and take actions on the majority of accreditation recommendations. IAC members consist of representatives of academic institutions accredited by HLC, as well as members of the public. Detailed information on IAC processes is found in HLC’s policies on decision-making.
Public Information
In the interest of being transparent, HLC is committed to providing information to the public regarding accreditation decisions made regarding individual institutions.
Actions that are taken by HLC regarding an institution’s accreditation status are disclosed to the public. Since July 2013, in all cases of issuing continued accreditation, placing an institution on or resolving a sanction, or withdrawing accreditation, the Action Letter issued to the institution is made available for viewing and the institution’s status in HLC’s online directory is updated. Public Disclosure Notices are also issued in cases of sanction and other HLC actions to provide the public insight into the issues regarding that institution.
Complaints Against HLC-Accredited Institutions
HLC has an online resource to communicate complaints about institutions from faculty, students, and other parties. HLC has established a clear distinction between individual grievances and complaints that appear to involve broad institutional practices. Where a complaint does raise issues regarding the institution’s ongoing ability to meet the Criteria of Accreditation, HLC forwards the complaint to the institution and requests a formal response.
Complainants with specific claims related to the Americans with Disabilities Act or employment discrimination should seek review of such claims by the appropriate federal agencies.