THE VISIT Year Seven Self-Evaluation

BASIC PRINCIPLES Peer Evaluation Standards-Based System Relationship to Standards: compliance; substantial compliance; or non compliance

The Process Self-Evaluation Report due 6-8 weeks prior to visit Evaluation Committee begins work NWCCU office does hotel arrangements Institution responsible for transportation from and to airport and daily to and from campus Schedule developed by chair and ALO

PRE-VISIT ORGANIZATION MEETING (Evaluation Committee) Understanding of the following days’ activities and process Areas of responsibility Meeting changes/additions Typically at 4pm at hotel (for on site)

DAY ONE – INTRODUCTORY MEETING Generally breakfast at institution Led by president of institution and chair of committee President welcomes and introduces staff Chair greets and introduces evaluation committee Chair reviews process

DAY ONE – MEETINGS AND INTERVIEWS One-on-one meetings Group meetings All-campus meetings (day 1 or 2) – Students – Faculty – Staff – No administrators present

DAY TWO – MEETINGS AND INTERVIEWS Continuation of day one There may be additions/changes to your meeting schedule Trustees (Day 1 or 2) Evaluation Committee meeting each day at 4:00pm Flexibility

COMMENDATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; COMPLIMENTS AND CONCERNS (Handbook for Peer Evaluators, pgs ) A Commendation, enumerated at the end of peer‐evaluation report, is a laudatory statement agreed upon by the committee. A Recommendation indicates that an institution is not in compliance with one or more accreditation criterion or that it is substantially in compliance with one or more accreditation criterion, but in need of improvement.

COMMENDATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; COMPLIMENTS AND CONCERNS (Handbook for Peer Evaluators, pgs ) A Compliment is a congratulatory statement or noteworthy practice or achievement of an area within the institution and may or may not rise to the level of an institutional Commendation. A Concern is intended to be advisory to the institution to indicate that attention to the matter is warranted although it may or may not rise to the level of a Recommendation that requires immediate action.

Confidential Recommendation Accreditation Status Recommended Action: – Reaffirm accreditation – Grant accreditation – Grant or continue candidacy – Deny accreditation or candidacy – Remove accreditation or candidacy Specific information regarding evaluation of recommendations from previous evaluation report Information about recommendations from current evaluation report

DAY THREE – EXIT MEETING Usually minutes President welcomes Chair thanks Chair explains process Chair reads Commendations and Recommendations

AFTER THE VISIT Chair compiles sections; edits; sends draft #1 to the committee for edits (generally one week) Chair sends draft #2 to institution, asking for correction of facts (generally one week) Chair provides final report along with confidential recommendation to the Commission President meets with Commission as does the Peer- Evaluation Committee chair Commission takes action regarding accreditation status (meets twice a year)