The Periodic Review Report and Middle States Accreditation

1. The Periodic Review Report and Middle States Accreditation PRR WorkshopApril 9, 2008

2. The Context of the PRR • Regional accreditation • Voluntary peer review • The Middle States Commission on Higher Education

3. The Accreditation Cycle • Annual Institutional Profile • Data submitted each spring • Decennial evaluation • Before initial accreditation, then… • Five years after initial accreditation, then… • Every ten years after that • Involves a significant institutional self-study • And a team visit by external peer evaluators

4. The Accreditation Cycle, Cont. • The Periodic Review Report • Is submitted at the five-year point between decennial evaluations • Is not a full self-study report • Has a different format from a self-study report • But includes a follow-up report on the institution’s responses to the recommendations in its previous self-study and team report

5. The Accreditation Cycle, Cont. • The Periodic Review Report… • Does not involve a team visit • Is reviewed by two peer evaluators, the Committee on Periodic Review Reports, and the Commission • Is necessary for maintaining an institution’s accreditation—the Commission acts on it in the same ways that it acts on a decennial evaluation

6. The Accreditation Cycle, Cont. • Follow-Up Reports • Progress letters, monitoring reports, and special team visits can be requested by the Commission as the result of a decennial evaluation, a PRR, or a previous follow-up report • Should be mentioned but do not need to be addressed in detail in the PRR (PRR Handbook, p. 6)

7. Resources for the PRR • Characteristics of Excellence • Handbook for Periodic Review Reports

8. Characteristics of Excellence • 12th ed., 2006 • Contains the Commission’s • Eligibility Requirements • Accreditation Standards

9. Handbook for Periodic Review Reports • Tenth Edition, 2007 • Revised to emphasize to institutions… • The importance of including all the sections described in the handbook • The importance of providing relevant evidence • The importance of documenting and analyzing assessment activities

10. Handbook for Periodic Review Reports, cont. • Also revised to provide PRR reviewers with… • Clearer guidance for evaluating the PRR • A template for their report

11. Handbook for Periodic Review Reports, cont. • And to include the Commission’s publication, “Assessing Student Learning and Institutional Effectiveness” (Appendix 2), to provide guidance to institutions and evaluators with regard to the Commission’s expectations for assessment

12. Contents of the Periodic Review Report(PRR Handbook, pp. 4-7) 1) Executive Summary

13. PRR Contents, cont. • Attach to the Executive Summary the Certification Statement of Compliance with MSCHE Eligibility Requirements and Federal Title IV Requirements (Appendix 1, PRR Handbook, p. 22)

14. Eligibility Requirements • In Characteristics of Excellence, pp. xii-xiv • All institutions submitting a PRR must certify that they continue to meet the Commission’s Eligibility Requirements • Attach the Eligibility Certification Statement to the Executive Summary of the PRR

15. The other sections of the PRR reflect the objectives of the PRR. 2) A summary of the institution’s responses to recommendations from the previous team report and self-study • Account for all recommendations (but not suggestions) • Recommendations can be grouped, if necessary

16. PRR Contents, cont. 3) A narrative identifying major challenges and/or opportunities

17. PRR Contents, cont. 4) Evidence and analysis of enrollment and finance trends and projections

18. PRR Contents, cont. 5) Description and analysis of assessment processes and plans

19. PRR Contents, cont. 6) Description and analysis of the links between institutional planning and budgeting processes

20. The PRR is an accreditation event. Although the formats differ from that of the decennial self-study and team report, the PRR and reviewer’s report are as important as the decennial evaluation for an institution’s accreditation

21. How does the PRR relate to the Commission’s accreditation standards?

22. The PRR and the Standards • Section 2 of the PRR addresses the institution’s responses to the recommendations included in its previous self-study and team report… • Those recommendations are usually tied to particular Standards… • So the relevant Standards should be identified in this section of the PRR

23. The PRR and the Standards, Cont. • Section 3 on major challenges and/or opportunities can be framed in terms of the Standards • Institutions should take the opportunity to comment on as many Standards as possible • Sections 2 and 3 will be the focus of this morning’s break-out discussion session

24. The PRR and the Standards, Cont. • Section 4 on enrollment and finance trends and projections relates directly to Standard 2 on planning and to Standard 3 on resources. • The plenary speaker this afternoon will address this section.

25. The PRR and the Standards, Cont. • Section 5 on assessment processes and plans relates directly to Standard 7 on the assessment of institutional effectiveness and Standard 14 on the assessment of student learning • The plenary speaker this morning will address this section.

26. The PRR and the Standards, Cont. • Section 6 on linked institutional planning and budgeting processes relates directly to Standard 2 on planning and Standard 3 on resources • A fundamental element of Standard 3 is that an accredited institution possesses “a financial planning and budgeting process aligned with the institution’s mission, goals, and plan that provides for an annual budget and multi-year budget projections, both institution-wide and among departments”

27. The PRR and the Standards, Cont. • The plenary speaker this afternoon will also address this section

28. The relationship of the PRR to the Standards makes possible the second goal of the PRR (PRR Handbook, p. 4): “To enable the Commission to assess the current status, as well as the future prospects, of institutions, within the framework of the Commission’s eligibility requirements and accreditation standards”

29. The other two goals of the PRR (p. 4) are equally important: • To help institutions gauge their progress in achieving their own goals and objectives • To fulfill the Commission’s accountability to the public, the academic community at large, and its member institutions

30. The second break-out session this afternoon will focus on the process of producing a Periodic Review Report.

31. What happens after submission of the PRR?

32. The report is reviewed by… • Two external peer reviewers who consult with each other and prepare a joint report • A finance reviewer • The reviewers send their reports to the institution and the Commission by August 1

33. The institution prepares a formal response to the reports and sends it to the Commission by September 1 • The reviewers submit a confidential brief to the Commission that includes their recommendation for accreditation action • The PRR Committee meets in October to review all relevant materials and recommend an action to the Commission

34. The Commission acts on the Committee’s recommendation at its November meeting • The Commission informs the institution of its action by letter immediately after the meeting

35. The institution acts on its recommendations in the PRR and those of its PRR reviewers • The institution eagerly anticipates its next Middle States evaluation

36. Questions?