handbook for periodic review reports ... for periodic review reports middle states commission on...

HANDBOOK FOR

PERIODICREVIEWREPORTS

Middle States Commission on Higher Education

Published by the

Middle States Commission on Higher Education3624 Market StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19104

Telephone: (267) 284–5000Fax: (215) 662–5501www.msache.org

© 2004 by the Middle States Commission on Higher EducationAll rights reserved.

First edition September 1982; Second edition July 1984; Third edition March 1988; Fourth edition January 1989; Fifth edition January 1990; Sixth edition January 1995; Seventh edition February1998; Eighth edition March 2000;

Ninth edition February 2004.

This edition supersedes all previous editions.

Permission is granted to colleges and universities within the jurisdiction of the Middle StatesCommission on Higher Education to photocopy this handbook for the purpose of institutionalself-study and peer review. The text of these standards also may be downloaded from theCommission’s website. Bound copies may be purchased through the publications order form, alsoavailable on the website.

Printed in the United States of America

ii

Handbook for Periodic Review Reports

Contents

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I. The Commission’s Standards

Eligibility Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Standards for Accreditation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

II. Guidelines for Institutional Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Contents of the Periodic Review Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Steps in Preparing a Periodic Review Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Sample Cover Page for the PRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

III. Guidelines for External Reviewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Reviewing Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Preparing the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

The Finance Associate’s Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Submitting the Report and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Attending the PRR Committee Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Sample Cover Page for the Reviewers’ Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

IV. The Institution’s Response and Commission Review

Commission Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Deadlines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Appendices:

1. PRR Certification Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2. Middle States Commission on Higher Education: Mission Statement. . . 25

iii


Introduction

Accreditation is the means of self-regulation and peer review adopted by theeducational community. The accrediting process is intended to strengthen andsustain the quality and integrity of higher education, making it worthy of publicconfidence and minimizing the scope of external control. The extent to which

each educational institution accepts and fulfills the responsibilities inherent in the process is a measure of its concern for freedom and quality in higher education and itscommitment to striving for and achieving excellence in its endeavors.

Middle States accreditation is an expression of confidence in an institution’s mission andgoals, its performance, and its resources. Based upon the results of institutional review by peers and colleagues assigned by the Commission, accreditation attests to the judgmentof the Commission on Higher Education that an institution has met the following criteria:

Ø that it has a mission appropriate to higher education;

Ø that it is guided by well-defined and appropriate goals, including goals for student learning;

Ø that it has established conditions and procedures under which its mission andgoals can be realized;

Ø that it assesses both institutional effectiveness and student learning outcomes, anduses the results for improvement;

Ø that it is accomplishing its mission and goals substantially;

Ø that it is so organized, staffed, and supported that it can be expected to continue to accomplish its mission and goals; and

Ø that it meets the eligibility requirements and standards of the Middle StatesCommission on Higher Education.

Membership in the Middle States Association follows a period of candidacy lasting up tofive years. The Middle States Commission on Higher Education reviews institutionsperiodically through either on-site evaluation or other reports. Accreditation is continuedonly as a result of periodic reviews and evaluations of institutional achievements.

One of the principles of voluntary accreditation is that no institution accredited by theMiddle States Commission on Higher Education will be permitted to go longer than fiveyears without a substantive report to the Commission or longer than 10 years without anevaluation visit.

The Periodic Review Report (PRR), due five years after the decennial self-study andreaffirmation of accreditation, is a retrospective, current, and prospective analysis of theinstitution. As an essential phase of the accreditation cycle, the PRR should demonstratethat the institution meets the standards by which the Commission reaffirms or deniesaccredited status.

1

This revised edition of the Handbook for Periodic Review Reports reflects an effort tostreamline the process and to make the process fully compatible with the accreditationstandards adopted in 2002. The Handbook is designed to assist institutions and reviewersin understanding the purpose of the PRR and its place in the accreditation cycle, as wellas to provide guidance to those on campuses who are entrusted with preparing the finaldocument. A section of this booklet also is addressed specifically to the externalreviewers appointed by the Commission to analyze and report on the status of institutions that have PRRs under consideration.

The Commission staff stands ready to be of assistance and should be called upon iffurther information or clarification is needed.

2


1The Commission’s Standards

To be eligible to apply for accreditation, institutions must meet the Commission’seligibility requirements, as outlined in Characteristics of Excellence in HigherEducation: Eligibility Requirements and Standards for Accreditation (2002) andCandidacy: Handbook for Applicants and Candidates for Accreditation. In order toachieve initial accreditation and retain accredited status, institutions also must meet theCommission’s accreditation standards, which are detailed in Characteristics ofExcellence in Higher Education.

Accreditation is a continuing status which, once conferred, is not removed except forcause and then only with observance of due process. A responsible accrediting programnecessarily includes the periodic review of accredited institutions, both for their benefitand for the fulfillment of the Commission’s accountability to the public and to theacademic community.

Eligibility Requirements

Institutions seeking candidacy or initial accreditation must demonstrate compliance withall 22 eligibility requirements listed on pp. xi - xiii of Characteristics of Excellence. An accredited institution seeking reaffirmation of accreditation must demonstrate that itcontinues to meet the first seven eligibility requirements, which are reprinted below:

1. The institution is authorized to operate as an educational institution and awardpostsecondary degrees by an appropriate governmental organization within the MiddleStates region and other agencies as required by each of the jurisdictions or regions inwhich it operates. Based on review of individual institutional requests, the Commissionmay determine that degree-granting authority from a U.S. or foreign governmental orother agency outside the Middle States region is an acceptable alternative.

2. The institution’s mission is clearly defined and adopted by its governing boardconsistent with its legal authorization, and is appropriate to a degree granting institutionof higher education.

3

3. Educational programs within the institution award credit towards postsecondarydegrees equivalent to at least one academic year in length.

4. The governing body is able to assure that the institution adheres to the eligibilityrequirements, describes itself in identical terms to all accrediting agencies, can bereasonably expected to adhere to accreditation standards and policies, communicate anychanges in its accredited status, and that it will make freely available to the Commissionaccurate, fair, and complete information on all aspects of the institution and itsoperations.

5. The institution publishes in its catalog or other appropriate places accurate and currentinformation that describes purposes and objectives, admission requirements andprocedures, academic calendars, rules and regulations directly affecting students,programs and courses, degrees offered and the degree requirements, costs and refundpolicies, grievance procedures, academic credentials of faculty and administrators, andother items relative to attending the institution and withdrawing from it.

6. The institution devotes a sufficient portion of its income to the support of itseducational purposes and programs.

7. The institution complies with applicable interregional policies, such as “SeparatelyAccreditable Institutions” and “Evaluation of Institutions Operating Interregionally.”

Standards for Accreditation

In order to be accredited, institutions must demonstrate that they meet the followingaccreditation standards, within the context of their own institutional mission and goals.

Institutional Context

Standard 1: Mission, Goals, and Objectives

The institution’s mission clearly defines its purpose within the context of highereducation and explains whom the institution serves and what it intends to accomplish.The institution’s stated goals and objectives, consistent with the aspirations andexpectations of higher education, clearly specify how the institution will fulfill itsmission. The mission, goals, and objectives are developed and recognized by theinstitution with its members and its governing body and are utilized to develop and shape its programs and practices and to evaluate its effectiveness.

Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal

An institution conducts ongoing planning and resource allocation based on its mission and uses the results of its assessment activities for institutional renewal.Implementation and subsequent evaluation of the success of the strategic plan andresource allocation support the development and change necessary to improve and to maintain institutional quality.

4


Standard 3: Institutional Resources

The human, financial, technical, physical facilities, and other resources necessary toachieve an institution’s mission and goals are available and accessible. In the context ofthe institution’s mission, the effective and efficient uses of the institution’s resources areanalyzed as part of ongoing outcomes assessment.

Standard 4: Leadership and Governance

The institution’s system of governance clearly defines the roles of institutionalconstituencies in policy development and decision-making. The governance structureincludes an active governing body with sufficient autonomy to assure institutionalintegrity and to fulfill its responsibilities of policy and resource development, consistentwith the mission of the institution.

Standard 5: Administration

The institution’s administrative structure and services facilitate learning andresearch/scholarship, foster quality improvement, and support the institution’sorganization and governance.

Standard 6: Integrity

In the conduct of its programs and activities involving the public and the constituencies it serves, the institution demonstrates adherence to ethical standards and its own statedpolicies, providing support to academic and intellectual freedom.

Standard 7: Institutional Assessment

The institution has developed and implemented an assessment plan and process thatevaluates its overall effectiveness in: achieving its mission and goals; implementingplanning, resource allocation, and institutional renewal processes; using institutionalresources efficiently; providing leadership and governance; providing administrativestructures and services; demonstrating institutional integrity; and assuring thatinstitutional processes and resources support appropriate learning and other outcomes forits students and graduates.

Educational Effectiveness

Standard 8: Student Admissions

The institution seeks to admit students whose interests, goals, and abilities are congruentwith its mission.

Standard 9: Student Support Services

The institution provides student support services reasonably necessary to enable eachstudent to achieve the institution’s goals for students.

5


Standard 10: Faculty

The institution’s instructional, research, and service programs are devised, developed,monitored, and supported by qualified professionals.

Standard 11: Educational Offerings

The institution’s educational offerings display academic content, rigor, and coherencethat are appropriate to its higher education mission. The institution identifies studentlearning goals and objectives, including knowledge and skills, for its educationalofferings.

Standard 12: General Education

The institution’s curricula are designed so that students acquire and demonstratecollege-level proficiency in general education and essential skills, including oral andwritten communication, scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical analysis andreasoning, technological competency, and information literacy.

Standard 13: Related Educational Activities

Institutional programs or activities that are characterized by particular content, focus,location, mode of delivery, or sponsorship meet appropriate standards.

Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning

Assessment of student learning demonstrates that the institution’s students haveknowledge, skills, and competencies consistent with institutional goals and that studentsat graduation have achieved appropriate higher education goals.

6


2Guidelines for Institutional Reports

The Periodic Review Report is ordinarily submitted five years after an institution’sself-study and evaluation team visit, although individual institutional circumstances mayoccasionally warrant earlier submission at the Commission’s request. As a retrospective,current, and prospective analysis of an institution, the PRR provides significantinstitutional progress and planning information to the Commission on Higher Education.The preparation of a PRR, like that of a self-study document, provides opportunities forconstructive discussion among the institution’s several constituencies, bringing variouspoints of view to the consideration of recent institutional developments and currentinstitutional issues.

At its best, the periodic review of accredited institutions is a creative means of assistingin the continuous assessment of the institutions’ educational mission, goals, andobjectives. Ideally, self-review should be an integral and ongoing activity on everycampus, only incidentally related to calendars and accreditation but constantly keyed tothe natural relationship between self-study and educational planning. The more self-study and evaluation are seen as directly related to institutional viability and quality, the moreproductive the self-study and evaluation process will be. The resulting report shouldserve as a useful planning and development document for the institution. A successfulPRR process also allows an institution to reflect upon and acknowledge its progress andaccomplishments and to develop plans or create consensus regarding important nextsteps.

An institution will receive notification on several occasions about the due date of itsPRR: (1) when formal action letters on accreditation status are sent by the Commissionfollowing reaffirmation, review of follow-up reports, and review of reports related tospecial visits; (2) when institutions are invited to participate in PRR workshops; and (3) when notice is sent to all institutions due to submit PRRs in the next year.

It is the responsibility of each institution to allow sufficient time for adequate preparation of a useful PRR. The experience of the Commission is that, on average, one year frominitiation of the process to submission of the report is needed. In the spring of each year,

7

the Commission offers PRR workshops for institutions whose reports are due in thesubsequent two-year period.

Goals and Objectives

The PRR is intended to achieve the following goals and objectives:

Goals

1) To help institutions gauge their progress in achieving their own goals andobjectives

2) To enable the Commission to assess the current status, as well as the futureprospects, of institutions, within the framework of the Commission’s eligibilityrequirements and accreditation standards

3) To fulfill the Commission’s accountability to the public, the academic communityat large, and its member institutions

Objectives

1) To assess the impact of significant major developments, changes, or challengessubsequent to the last evaluation

2) To assess the institution’s response to recommendations resulting from theprevious evaluation

3) To review the institution’s enrollment trends, financial status, and enrollment andfinancial projections

4) To determine the current status of the implementation of plans for the assessmentof institutional effectiveness and the assessment of student learning outcomes(accreditation standards 7 and 14)

5) To assess the extent to which linked institutional planning and budgetingprocesses are in place

The Contents of the Periodic Review Report

The Periodic Review Report is not a mini-self-study, and it is not the Commission’sintention to require voluminous reports to fulfill the PRR requirement. The emphasis ison brevity in providing required information. Most Periodic Review Reports will requireapproximately 50 pages. However, the actual length of the report will depend on factorssuch as the number of issues the institution must address, institutional complexity, andthe intended institutional uses for the document.

Institutions that are actively engaged in continuous planning and assessment are stronglyencouraged to submit documentation from regular processes without significantadditional description or analysis. In the event that such documentation is not available, a description of the process used by the institution, accompanied by appropriate detail andexamples, should be provided.

Institutions are encouraged to utilize information previously submitted to MSCHE as asource of data for analysis. For example, annually updated institutional profiles submitted since the previous self-study could provide some of the data needed to complete the PRR.

8


Unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise, the Periodic Review Report shouldfollow the format noted below.

1) An executive summary

Include a brief overview of the institution and a summary of major changes anddevelopments since the decennial accreditation.

2) A summary description of the institution’s response to recommendations (but not suggestions) from the previous team report and institutional self-study

Any recommendations already addressed in separate progress letters ormonitoring reports to the Commission should be noted as such and brieflysummarized.(Recommendations address issues relative to an institution’s continuingcompliance with accreditation standards. Suggestions express collegial advice for institutional consideration.)

3) A brief narrative identifying the institution’s major challenges and/or current opportunities

4) Analysis of enrollment and finance projections for the next five years,including assumptions on which those projections are based, and related toenrollment and fiscal trends from the previous five years

Supporting documentation must include the previous two audited financialstatements and accompanying management letters or their equivalents.

5) Evidence that outcomes assessment processes (for both institutionaleffectiveness and student learning) are in place and that the results of suchprocesses are being utilized

6) Evidence that linked institutional planning and budgeting processes are in place

A more detailed discussion of the contents of each of these sections of the PRR followsbelow.

1) Executive Summary

This important summary should be prepared after the entire PRR has been completed, but it should appear as a preface to the document.

The executive summary of no more than five pages in length should include:

Ø a brief introductory overview of the institution, including references to mission,enrollment, educational offerings, structures, and resources that will provideappropriate institutional context for the reader of the PRR

Ø summary information on the institution’s approach to the preparation of the PRR

Ø a summary of major institutional changes and developments since the decennialaccreditation, to the extent that such changes are relevant to one or moreaccreditation standards

Ø an abstract of the highlights of the PRR in narrative form

9


The completed PRR Certification Statement, affirming that the institution continues to meet eligibility requirements 1-7 (Characteristics of Excellence, p. xi) and the 14 accreditation standards, should be attached to the Executive Summary. Pertinentqualifying information, if any, should be included or referenced. A sample PRRCertification Statement is included at the end of this Handbook.

Please note that 15 COPIES of the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, in addition to the copyincluded in each PRR, ARE REQUIRED AND SHOULD BE SENT TO THECOMMISSION OFFICE AS PART OF THE PRR PACKAGE. These 15 copies shouldinclude the PRR Certification Statement.

2) Summary of institution’s response to recommendations from the previous team report and institutional self-study

Because developments and changes occur partially in response to recommendationsresulting from the previous evaluation, it is expected that all major self-study andevaluation report recommendations will be reviewed and analyzed thoroughly in order to provide a critical appraisal of actions or decisions taken. In some instances, theCommission may have directed, as a follow-up measure through its formal action letters,that the PRR provide an update on progress in specific areas.

This summary need not include either comments relative to suggestions from the priorteam report or substantive comment relative to recommendations that have already beenaddressed in progress letters or monitoring reports to the Commission.

While institutions may find it useful to include an index of recommendations in chartform as an appendix to the PRR, most institutions group recommendations by topic orfunctional area, rather than address all recommendations individually. Although it is notintended that all recommendations of the evaluation team be accepted, all should becarefully considered. In some cases, recommendations may be rejected, but the rationalefor taking such action should be included in this section of the report.

3) Narrative identifying major challenges and/or opportunities

Identify briefly what the institution sees as its most important challenges or opportunitiesover the next five years, consistent with the information and analysis contained elsewhere in the PRR. Only challenges and opportunities with particular relevance to one or moreaccreditation standards should be addressed, although the institution need not identifywhich standards relate to each challenge or opportunity described.

This section of the PRR is designed to allow the institution maximum opportunity torecord briefly and to analyze its chief accomplishments and any significant obstacles orchallenges. Among these developments could be changes in mission, programs,institutional effectiveness (outcomes), student services, facilities and other institutionalresources, administrative organization, governing board, governance structures,personnel and management, institutional research and planning, policies and procedures,admissions, enrollment management, retention and attrition, and financial condition.

4) Enrollment and finance trends and projections

Trend analyses of enrollment and fiscal data should cover the five-year period since thelast evaluation. These analyses should be followed by projections for the next five years.

In addition to describing the status and projections of enrollments and finance throughnarrative, charts, and diagrams, it is expected that the projections will be accompanied by appropriate assumptions (e.g., graduate enrollment will increase due to new programs;

10


state funding will remain stable) or other evidence to demonstrate their plausibility.When presenting the enrollment data for the last five years or for the projected five years, it is useful to categorize the data by programs and/or levels (e.g., undergraduate,graduate, or other) and to relate these data to current and future fiscal information.

Fiscal information applies to both operational and capital accounts. This information willbe viewed in relation to the audited financial statements and management letters (orequivalent fiscal accountability data) accompanying the Periodic Review Report. The institution’s fiscal analysis may incorporate financial indicators or ratios (such asthose developed by Moody’s, KPMG, or others), if the institution judges such ratios to be useful and meaningful.

In all cases, the fiscal analysis should include selected data such as trends in net incomeand net assets. Institutions may draw on data previously submitted in annual or follow-up reports to MSCHE and may append other materials such as existing budget projections or selected IPEDS data, if relevant.

Institutions may find it helpful to review the suggested questions for PRR financeassociates in Chapter 3 of this Handbook.

5) Assessment processes and plans

Among the principles that guided the revision of the Commission’s accreditationstandards is greater emphasis on institutional assessment and the assessment of studentlearning. By complying with the standards, accredited institutions assure the public thatthey provide quality higher education. Specifically, the Commission’s processdemonstrates that institutions have meaningful and appropriate learning goals for theirstudents; that their academic programs are designed to meet those goals; that they usevalid, reliable, and effective means of measuring student learning and affectivedevelopment; and that they use the results of their self-assessment.

The accreditation standards relating to assessment are intended to foster and cultivate theprogress of member institutions. They are not intended to be prescriptive. Each standardstresses the significance of self-study and peer review as a developmental activity. Theways in which individual institutions carry out assessment activities and determine theextent to which their goals for student learning have been met is an institutionalprerogative.

Accreditation standards 7 and 14, which provide the primary context for this section ofthe PRR, are mutually supportive in that they recognize the centrality of student learningto institutional effectiveness.

Standard 7: Institutional Assessment

The institution has developed and implemented an assessment plan and process thatevaluates its overall effectiveness in: achieving its mission and goals; implementingplanning, resource allocation, and institutional renewal processes; using institutionalresources efficiently; providing leadership and governance; providing administrativestructures and services; demonstrating institutional integrity; and assuring thatinstitutional processes and resources support appropriate learning and other outcomes for its students and graduates.

Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning

Assessment of student learning demonstrates that the institution’s students haveknowledge, skills, and competencies consistent with institutional goals and thatstudents at graduation have achieved appropriate higher education goals.

11


The following guiding principles for the assessment of student learning should help to frame what the institution has to say about its assessment practices in this section ofthe PRR:

Guiding Principle 1: Existing Culture

Begin by acknowledging the existence of assessment throughout the institutionin order to ensure that the assessment plan is grounded in the institutionalculture.

Guiding Principle 2: Realistic Plan with Appropriate Investment of Resources

Plans for assessment at the program, school, and institutional levels should berealistic and supported by the appropriate investment of institutional resources.

Guiding Principle 3: Involvement of Faculty and Students

Academic leadership is necessary in order to gain the support and involvement of faculty members, staff, administrators, and students across the institution.

Guiding Principle 4: Clear Goals

Assessment activities should be focused by a set of clear statements of expectedstudent learning (knowledge, skills, and competencies).

Guiding Principle 5: Appropriate Methods

Assessment should involve the systematic and thorough collection of direct andindirect evidence of student learning, at multiple points in time and in varioussituations, using a variety of qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods thatare embedded in courses, programs, and overall institutional processes.

Guiding Principle 6: Useful Data

Data gained through assessment activities should be meaningful. They should beused, first, to enhance student learning at the institutional, program, and courselevels; second, in institutional planning and resource allocation; and third, toevaluate periodically the assessment process itself for its comprehensiveness and efficacy.

For a thorough discussion of this topic, institutions should consult the Commissionpublication Student Learning Assessment: Options and Resources.

The institution should note any important changes in assessment goals, instruments, orstrategies that may have been introduced since the institution’s previous decennialself-study report, as well as report any steps to which the institution has committed inorder to strengthen assessment.

If the institution has separate assessment plans or portions of strategic plans that addressinstitutional effectiveness or student learning, those documents should be sent with thePRR, and the text of the PRR should highlight key elements from those assessment plans. In the rare instance where the institution has no separate assessment plans, the text of thePRR should provide detailed information on the scope and range of assessment activities.

12


6) Linked institutional planning and budgeting processes

Accreditation Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewalprovides the primary context for this final section of the PRR:

An institution conducts ongoing planning and resource allocation based on itsmission and uses the results of its assessment activities for institutional renewal.Implementation and subsequent evaluation of the success of the strategic plan andresource allocation support the development and change necessary to improve and tomaintain institutional quality.

Institutions should provide a brief narrative describing current institutional planning andbudgeting processes, with particular attention to demonstrating how such processes areintegrated and linked. The narrative should be supported by reference to institutionalplanning documents (provided in paper copy or via electronic access). If no suchdocuments exist, the narrative must provide a detailed account of what the institution iscurrently doing to carry out linked planning and budgeting processes.

Alternatively, institutions that have developed effective strategic or long-range masterplans may satisfy this requirement of the PRR by making reference to such documents inthe PRR and by including the planning documents as attachments. Because the materialswhich demonstrate these processes usually are extensive, brevity in this narrative sectionis encouraged.

Steps in Preparing a Periodic Review Report

There are 10 essential steps that institutions follow in developing the Periodic ReviewReport.

Step 1: Organize for the task

For most institutions, organizing for the PRR involves the designation of an existing ornewly created committee to coordinate the effort and write the final document. Thepreparation of a PRR, just like a self-study, should involve various campus constituencies in the creation and review of the PRR; these constituencies should include faculty, staff,administration, and the board of trustees. Prior to submitting the PRR to the Commission, representatives of these groups should have adequate opportunity to discuss and respondto the draft PRR.

Step 2: Review documents relating to previous evaluation

Those with responsibility for the PRR process should review these important background documents:

a) the institution’s self-study document

b) the report of the visiting team

c) the institution’s response

d) the Commission’s action letter

e) any follow-up report(s) required by the Commission

Familiarity with these documents should be sufficient to assure that the significance ofcurrent institutional developments is clear to any leaders of the PRR process who are notclosely involved in the daily affairs of the institution or who were not direct participantsin the previous self-study process.

13


Those involved in the PRR process also should be familiar with this Handbook and withCharacteristics of Excellence in Higher Education: Eligibility Requirements andStandards for Accreditation.

Step 3: Collect other essential data

Develop an annotated inventory of institutional reports, evaluations, data collections, and other documents that have a clear relationship to the various components of the PRR asoutlined above. The inventory should include both paper documents and those availableelectronically.

Other documents that should be gathered or made accessible include:

Ø institutional profiles submitted to Middle States annually since the last evaluationvisit (Note: These profiles include enrollment and financial data that may beuseful.)

Ø substantive change requests submitted to the Commission (if any)

Ø audited financial statements and managements letters (or equivalents) for the prior two years

Ø institutional budget documents

Ø institutional planning documents

Ø outcomes assessment plans (or similar documents) relative to both the assessmentof institutional effectiveness and the assessment of student learning

Step 4: Organize, analyze, and interpret data

Step 5: Write the draft report

The PRR is not intended to duplicate a self-study report and is not expected to be aslengthy. The text of most PRRs is about 50 pages in length, supported by relevant paperor electronic resources that accompany the narrative report. The 50 page length is cited as a guideline; some reports may require more than 50 pages, while others may be shorter.In general, PRRs accompanied by separate key documents (e.g., assessment plans) willbe shorter than PRRs that are not supported by such documentation.

While working for brevity, be as explicit and precise as the nature of the materialpermits. Discuss subjects fully enough so that readers are able to assess the situation atthe institution. Cite and interpret figures, as necessary, to strengthen and clarify thereport.

When preparing materials, keep in mind the several audiences the PRR will reach. ThePRR should not be simply a response to a Commission requirement for reporting but,instead, should be used for the benefit of the institution itself. The internal audience (andpossible external audiences beyond the Commission) should be very much in the mindsof those preparing the final report.

Step 6: Conduct an institutional review of the content of draft report

Just as a self-study report should accurately represent the entire institution, so should thePRR. The institution should take appropriate steps to assure involvement in andawareness of the PRR process.

14


Step 7: Edit the final report

The final edited report should include a functional cover page (example follows) with the institution’s name and location, the date, and the chief executive officer’s name and title.The report should be securely stapled together or bound, not placed loosely in a folder.

Step 8: Prepare the executive summary & PRR Certification Statement

Be succinct, address the items detailed earlier in this Handbook, and limit the executivesummary to five pages.

Step 9: Submit, by June 1, the following PRR package to each of the two external reviewers appointed by the Commission. (Commission staffwill provide the names of the reviewers by May 2 or as soon thereafter aspossible.)

a) Periodic Review Report, including its executive summary and most recent“Institutional Profile” (IP attached at the end of the report)

b) Current catalog(s) in paper format, if an electronic version is not available

(Note: For electronic catalogs, be sure to identify the URL within any letter ormemorandum of transmittal and at appropriate places within the PRR text.)

c) Audited financial statements and management letters (or their equivalents) for thetwo most recently completed fiscal years

(The Commission is aware that not all institutions—for example, units of somepublic systems—have available separate institutional financial statements andmanagement letters. These institutions should provide alternative documents that will facilitate the finance reviewer and others making an assessment of the institution’scurrent financial status and future prospects. Such alternative documents mightinclude, but not be limited to, annual operating and capital budget summaries, as well as information relative to those auditing processes to which the institution is subject.Institutions not able to provide audited financial statements and management lettersmust provide particularly extensive analysis within the PRR section addressingenrollment and finance trends and projections.)

d) Assessment plans that address institutional effectiveness and student learning, ifavailable as separate documents

e) Institutional planning documents (e.g., strategic, long-range, master plan) orequivalents, to the extent these are referenced within the narrative of the PRR

f) Other institutional documents, if they will add substantially to an understanding ofthe institution’s status. Such documents might include the faculty handbook, studenthandbook, collective bargaining agreements, special studies or reports, or annualreports. Such documents should be included only if there is a clear need for them and there are specific references to the documents within the narrative of the PRR. Theinstitution may choose to provide the external reviewers with a list of resourcedocuments that can be made available to them upon request.

15


Step 10: Submit, by June 1, the PRR package to the Commission office

The PRR package for the Commission office is identical to the reviewers’ packagedetailed above, except:

a) Two copies of the Periodic Review Report, including the executive summaryand the most recent “Institutional Profile” (IP) attached at the end of the report,should be included; and

b) Fifteen additional separate copies of the executive summary should be sent.

Sample Cover Page for thePeriodic Review Report

16


Periodic Review Report

Presented by: (Name of Institution)

(Date)

Chief Executive Officer:

Commission action which preceded this report:

Date of the evaluation team's visit:

3Guidelines for External Reviewers

The task of an external reviewer is closely akin to that of an on-site evaluatorfollowing an institutional self-study, although in this case there is no campus visit involved. External reviewers constitute a group of individuals assigned to analyze and evaluate the Periodic Review Reports submitted by two institutions. Each

institutional report will be reviewed by two external reviewers, a member of theCommission’s professional staff, and a special finance associate. External reviewersserve as “First Reviewer” on one report and as “Second Reviewer” on the other.

In addition, a “finance associate” will be assigned to review each institution’s financialdocuments and to prepare a brief summary analysis. Within this chapter, the sectionentitled “The Finance Associate’s Report” describes the distinct role and responsibility of the finance associate.

The special responsibility of the first reviewer is both to draft and to finalize the externalreviewers’ report, utilizing the contribution and input of the second reviewer in a mannerwhich produces a document that both reviewers can accept and for which they can beadvocates. Finally, based on their own report and that of the finance associate, theexternal reviewers develop a confidential brief that includes the recommendation to theCommission regarding the institution’s accreditation.

In general, the PRR is a retrospective, current, and prospective appraisal of an institution, subsequent to its last evaluation. It is a detailed progress report required of all institutions whose accreditation has been reaffirmed within the past five years and is intended toachieve the goals and objectives listed earlier in this handbook. However, externalreviewers should keep in mind that the PRR is not a self-study, but it should be asanalytical as it is descriptive, it should be candid and forthright, and it should provide anaccurate and current picture of the institution.

17

The Commission relies on the personal and professional integrity of individuals to refuseany assignment where even the slightest potential for conflict of interest exists. Except inrare instances, the Commission staff will not knowingly assign an individual as a PRRreviewer if:

Ø the individual’s home institution is in the state in which the institution is located(unless the institution agrees to this);

Ø the individual’s home institution is part of the same system;

Ø the individual has been a candidate for employment in the evaluated institutionwithin the past year;

Ø the individual has been employed by the institution within the past five years;

Ø the individual has a business, consultative, or other interest in or relationship tothe institution under review and consideration;

Ø the individual has a family member who is an employee, board member, orcandidate for employment at the institution;

Ø the individual has expressed personal opinions bearing upon the accreditability ofthe institution;

Ø the individual is a graduate of the institution;

Ø in the individual’s judgment, there is any other circumstance that could beperceived as a conflict of interest.

Reviewing Materials

On or about June 1, reviewers will receive a packet of materials from each of the twoinstitutions to which they have been assigned. Reviewers should verify that all of thefollowing are included:

1) the Periodic Review Report (including the executive summary and the most recent “Institutional Profile”)

2) current catalog(s) in paper or electronic version

3) audited financial statements and management letters for the two most recentlycompleted fiscal years (or alternative financial information)

Some institutions may elect to send more than these required items (e.g., assessmentplans or institutional planning documents), as detailed earlier in this Handbook.

At about the same time, the Commission office will send pertinent file materials tofacilitate the reviewers’ tasks. These materials will always include at least theCommission letter communicating its most recent accreditation action and the report ofthe last evaluation team.

Should any of these materials be missing, the reviewer should contact the Commissionoffice or institution. Soon after receiving the materials, reviewers should be in touch with the reviewer(s) with whom they have been paired in order to agree on time lines anddeadlines for their consultation.

Prior to reading the PRR and related materials for the first time, the reviewers shouldreview all major sections of this PRR Handbook, with particular attention to theinstitution’s responsibilities in PRR preparation. If the reviewer believes that the PRRis inadequate or that all expected topics have not been covered, the reviewer shouldnotify the Commission staff liaison immediately. Commission staff will determine


18

whether further action (e.g., an opportunity to provide additional information or to revisethe report) is appropriate.

Preparing the Report

Prior to reading the PRR documents and preparing their report, the external reviewersshould be familiar with the eligibility requirements and accreditation standards that arereferenced in Chapter 1 of this Handbook.

Reviewers should read carefully all documents provided by the institution, with primaryattention to the PRR itself, key support documents, and the report of the last evaluationteam.

When preparing their reports, reviewers are reminded of the following:

Ø Aim for brevity, but brevity with substance. Most PRR reviewer reports requirefive to 10 single-spaced pages to cover all of the issues adequately and well.

Ø The report has two distinct audiences: the institution and the Commission onHigher Education.

Ø Although all financial documents will be provided to the reviewers, there will bea separate analysis of the institution’s fiscal status prepared by a finance associate. A report from that person will be forwarded to the reviewers and to the institution.

Reviewers should use the following recommended format for their reports:

Introduction

Comment on the adequacy and usefulness of the PRR.

The PRR’s data, information, and analysis

Within the framework of Middle States eligibility requirements and accreditation standards, as detailed in Characteristics of Excellence, comment on the substance and content of the PRR, including:

ü the institution’s major challenges or opportunities

ü the institution’s response to recommendations from the previous teamreport and institutional self-study

ü current enrollment and financial status and projections

ü the current status of the institution’s outcomes assessment processes (forboth institutional effectiveness and student learning), with particularattention to the utilization of assessment results

ü the linkage between institutional planning and budgeting processes

Conclusion

Provide a summary of areas of major institutional progress or areas of concern,with particular attention to those with strong relation to accreditation standards.

Suggestions for institutional improvement, based on reviewers’ analysis ofinstitutional materials, may be included. Such suggestions, which constitute peerconsultative advice, may be presented in this concluding section of thereviewers’ report or may be integrated at appropriate points within the precedingtext of the report. Suggestions are provided to support and assist the institution in its self-improvement efforts.

19


Recommendations, distinct from suggestions, are reserved for aspects of aninstitution where, in the reviewers’ judgment, ongoing attention andimprovement is required in order to continue meeting the Commission’saccreditation standards. If the reviewers conclude that the institution currentlyfails to comply with one or more accreditation standards, that conclusion shouldbe directly stated in the reviewers’ report, and the reviewers’ confidential briefshould reflect this conclusion.

The Finance Associate’s Report

Each finance associate comes to the Commission office during the summer to reviewinstitutional PRRs and related financial information and to prepare for each PRR a summary analysis that is one to two pages in length. Finance associates usually reviewPRR materials for several institutions.

The finance associate’s report is forwarded to the first and second PRR reviewers and tothe institution. Finance associates do not participate in the fall meetings of the Committee on Periodic Review Reports.

The written analysis of the finance associate should address, but not be limited to, thefollowing questions, with particular attention to the potential impact of any noted change:

Ø What is the institution’s overall financial condition?

Ø In what aspects did the institution’s financial condition improve, worsen, orremain unchanged over the past five years?

Ø What has been the change in net assets?

Ø What has been the change in unrestricted expendable reserves?

Ø How large is the long-term debt, and what impact will this have on theinstitution’s financial condition?

Ø Do the notes to the audits identify anything unusual or of concern? Considerespecially any notes that reference commitments or contingencies.

Ø Do the management letters identify any issues regarding internal financialoperations or procedures?

The finance associate’s report may incorporate particular financial indicators or ratios(such as those developed by Moody’s, KPMG, or others) if such ratios are judged usefuland meaningful to the analysis.

Submitting the Report and Recommendations

The report prepared by the first and second reviewers should be in the mail no later thanAugust 1, with 15 copies sent to the Commission office and one copy to the institution.

Following their receipt of the finance associate’s report, the external reviewers mustdevelop a confidential brief that includes their recommendation regarding accreditation.The brief is a short statement which summarizes the external reviewers’ report andincorporates key findings from the finance associate’s report. The brief, which is due nolater than September 1, speaks directly to the PRR Committee and to the Commissionitself. Because the Committee members will read the executive summary of the PRR aswell as the external reviewers’ report and the report of the finance associate, there is noneed for extensive repetition. The brief, which should be less than one page in length,will be the basis for the external reviewers’ oral report to the PRR Committee.

20


The wording of the recommendation regarding accreditation action should be consistentwith the policy statement and guidelines for Commission actions and standardizedlanguage. If follow-up reporting is suggested, the specific topics or issues should bestated clearly and made part of the recommendation. The recommendation should not becommunicated to the institution; it should be sent to the Commission office as part of theconfidential brief.

Attending the PRR Committee Meeting

The person designated as first reviewer is expected to attend the meeting of theCommittee on Periodic Review Reports at which the assigned institution will bediscussed.

The first reviewer provides a short oral summary of key findings and observationsregarding that institution’s PRR. Because all Committee members have copies of thewritten report, there is no need to read it aloud at the meeting. The reviewer’s oralpresentation should include the recommendation to the Commission regardingaccreditation action.

Once the PRR Committee meeting is completed, all documents related to the externalreviewers’ role should be destroyed, and complete confidentiality maintained.

Sample Cover Page for theExternal Reviewers’ Report

21


Report to

Faculty, Administration, Trustees, Students

of

Phil's College

Punxsutawney, PA 12345

Prepared following analysis of the institution's

Periodic Review Report

First Reviewer:(Name, title, and affiliation)

Second Reviewer:(Name, title, and affiliation)

(Date Prepared)

4The Institution’s ResponseAnd Commission Review

Each institution is required to submit a response to the reports provided by theexternal reviewers and the finance associate. The response should be brief andforthright, addressed to specific issues, such as a disagreement with perceptionsand/or interpretations, but it should avoid defensiveness or argument over minor

points. If the institution finds no major disagreement with the overall report, the response needs only to state that the institution accepts the report as written. The institutionalresponse will become part of the packet of materials reviewed by the PRR Committee.

The institution’s response should be in the form of a letter, addressed to the Commissionon Higher Education, in care of the executive director, 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia,PA 19104-2680. The original and 14 copies should be received by the Commission no later than September 1.

Commission Review

The Committee on Periodic Review Reports, chaired by a member of the Commission,will convene in October, reviewing approximately eight institutions at each session. To ensure consistency in applying the Commission’s standards, institutions of the sametype (e.g., community colleges or four-year institutions) are ordinarily reviewed on thesame day.

The materials made available to committee members will include the following: theexecutive summaries of the PRRs, the external reviewers’ analyses and recommendations for Commission action, the financial analyses, and the institutional responses.

Each committee presents specific recommendations to the Commission with regard toeach institutional report. These recommendations may range from acceptance of thereport and reaffirmation of accreditation to the extreme of issuing a show cause order, as discussed in the policy statement and guidelines for Commission Actions andstandardized language.

22


Deadlines

To ensure timely consideration of a PRR, all parties should meet the following deadlines:

1) Two copies of the PRR and all accompanying institutional materials should besent to the Commission office no later than June 1.

2) The institution will send the two previously designated external reviewers allmaterials by June 1. The Commission staff will provide all appropriate backgroundmaterials at approximately the same time. External reviewers are encouraged to be incontact with the institution or the Middle States staff in the event additional materials or further clarification is needed.

3) Finance associates will come to the Commission office during July to evaluate theinstitutional materials, and they will submit a written analysis to the staff, who willtransmit the analysis to the external reviewers and to the institution by August 15.

4) The external reviewers will be asked to submit their report (a succinct analysis ofthe PRR materials) by no later than August 1. The person designated as first reviewer will send one copy of the reviewers’ analysis to the institution as well as 15 copies to the Commission office.

5) The external reviewers submit their confidential brief to the Commission bySeptember 1.

6) The institution will submit its response by September 1.

7) PRR committees will convene during October.

At its November meeting, the Commission reviews the PRR Committee’s report andthereafter communicates its decision to the institution via letter, stating the precise actiontaken.

j:\PRRhandbook04

23


Appendix 1


PRR Certification Statement

_______________________________________________________________

(Name of Institution)

is seeking REAFFIRMATION of ACCREDITATION.

The undersigned hereby certify that the institution meets all established eligibilityrequirements of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education and theaccreditation standards detailed in Characteristics of Excellence.

__ exceptions or important qualifying comments are noted in an attachedmemorandum (Check if applicable)

______________________________________________

(Chief Executive Officer) (Date)

______________________________________________

(Chair, Board of Trustees or Directors) (Date)

24


Appendix 2


Mission Statement

The Middle States Commission on Higher Education is a voluntary, non-governmental,peer-based membership association dedicated to educational excellence and improvement through peer evaluation and accreditation. As a recognized leader in promoting andensuring quality assurance and improvement in higher education, the Commissiondefines, maintains, and promotes educational excellence and responds creatively to adiverse, dynamic, global higher education community that is continually evolving.

The Commission supports its members in their quest for excellence and providesassurance to the general public that accredited member institutions meet its standards.The Commission achieves its purposes through assessment, peer evaluation, consultation, information gathering and sharing, cooperation, and appropriate educational activities.The Commission is committed to the principles of cooperation, flexibility, openness, andresponsiveness to the needs of society and the higher education community

25


handbook for periodic review reports ... for periodic review reports middle states commission on...

Documents