Follow-up Reporting Expectations Part II MSCHE 2009 Annual Conference Mary Ellen Petrisko.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Interpreting & Applying the Standards October 4, 2006 Dr. Luis J. Pedraja, Vice President Middle States Commission on Higher Education.
Advertisements

Evaluator 102: An Introduction to Interpreting the Standards Dr. Luis G. Pedraja MSCHE Vice President.
Evaluator 101: An Introduction to Serving as a MSCHE Evaluator Dr. Luis G. Pedraja MSCHE Vice President.
Substantive Change Requesting Commission Approval of Substantive Changes at Institutions MSCHE Annual Meeting December 2009.
Chairs & Evaluators Workshop: Interpreting the Standards Dr. Luis G. Pedraja MSCHE Vice President.
PAINLESS PERIODIC REVIEW Cynthia Steinhoff Anne Arundel Community College Arnold, Maryland.
Overview of Institutional Accreditation AASCU Conference, Beijing, China 20 October, 2007 Jean Avnet Morse President Middle States Commission on Higher.
The Commissions Expectations on Reporting Middle States Commission on Higher Education.
Accreditation Liaison Officers (ALOs) MSCHE annual conference 2010 Mary Ellen Petrisko, Vice President.
Follow-up Reporting Expectations MSCHE Annual Conference 2009 Mary Ellen Petrisko.
Tips and Strategies for Chairing a Successful Team Visit
MSCHE Follow-up Reporting Expectations MSCHE Annual Conference 2010 Mary Ellen Petrisko Linda Suskie.
THE PERIODIC REVIEW REPORT: RE-ACCREDITATION AT THE MID-POINT MSCHE Annual Conference – 2010 Debra G. Klinman Vice President, MSCHE.
Accreditation Liaison Officers (ALOs)
THE PERIODIC REVIEW REPORT: RE-ACCREDITATION AT THE MID-POINT MSCHE Annual Conference – 2011 Debra G. Klinman, PhD Vice President.
Understanding MSCHE Expectations for Follow-Up Reports Linda Suskie Website:
Preparation of the Self-Study and Documentation
Rejected! Rebounding From and Moving Forward Following a Monitoring Report Requirement.
Substantive Change: Understanding Middle States Policy and Process
How to Interpret and Apply the Characteristics of Excellence: A Framework for Determining Compliance Karen Stout, President Montgomery County Community.
Evaluation Team Chair Training Presented By Dr. Tim Eaton TRACS Regional Representative.
Quality Improvement/ Quality Assurance Amelia Broussard, PhD, RN, MPH Christopher Gibbs, JD, MPH.
John Tyler Community College and the SACS Fifth Year Impact Report Dr. Ray Drinkwater Vice President of Academic & Student Services.
The Application for Renewal Accreditation: Electronic Submissions.
DEBRA G. KLINMAN, PH.D. ELLIE A. FOGARTY, ED.D. VICE PRESIDENTS, MSCHE Tips, Strategies, and Best Practices for Team Chairs.
Orientation for Academic Program Reviews
Writing Reports: Identify these stages I) Obtaining a clear specification II) Research & preparation III) Report writing.
Confirmation of Candidature Writing the research proposal Helen Thursby.
Technical Communication Fundamentals, 1 st Edition W.S. Pfeiffer and K. Adkins © 2011 Pearson Higher Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ All Rights.
Orientation to the Accreditation Internal Evaluation (Self-Study) Flex Activity March 1, 2012 Lassen Community College.
Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) Reaffirmation of Accreditation.
By Elizabeth Meade Our Reaccreditation through Middle States Commission on Higher Education Presentation to the New Members of the Board of Trustees, September.
Commission on Accreditation for Respiratory Care The Site Visitors Are Coming! Transitioning from Successful Self- Study to Successful Site Visit Bradley.
2009 NWCCU Annual Meeting Overview of the Revised Accreditation Standards and New Oversight Process Ronald L. Baker Executive Vice President and Director,
Middle States Accreditation at UB Jason N. Adsit Director, Teaching and Learning Center Michael E. Ryan Director, University Accreditation and Assessment.
Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) Reaffirmation of Accreditation.
Presented by: CA Uday Sathaye Gokhale & Sathe Chartered Accountants
2009 NWCCU Annual Meeting Overview of the Revised Accreditation Standards and New Oversight Process Ronald L. Baker Executive Vice President and Director,
SACS-COC Reaffirmation of Accreditation Overview Plus Q & A CCPRO Conference, Greensboro, NC September 2011 Kimberly B. Lawing, Vice President of Institutional.
What the *!# Is Middle States Looking For? A Review of Standards 7 and 14—Institutional & Student Learning Assessment Presentation to the Association of.
 Read through problems  Identify problems you think your team has the capacity and interest to solve  Prioritize the problems and indicate the.
6/3/2016 IENG 471 Facilities Planning 1 IENG 465 – Final Design Project Report & Presentation Requirements.
SACS and The Accreditation Process Faculty Convocation Southern University Monday, January 12, 2009 Presented By Emma Bradford Perry Dean of Libraries.
Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science Review and Planning Process Fall 1998.
Writing a Research Proposal 1.Label Notes: Research Proposal 2.Copy Notes In Your Notebooks 3.Come to class prepared to discuss and ask questions.
SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation 7/28/09 Academic Affairs Retreat Cathy Sanders Director of Assessment.
SACS Compliance Certification Orientation Meeting June 23, 2008.
The AstraZeneca Research Grant Nigeria
WASC “All Hands” Meeting Overview and Update November 12, 2007 D. Jonte-Pace.
15 The Research Report.
Commission on Teacher Credentialing Ensuring Educator Excellence 1 Program Assessment Technical Assistance Meetings December 2009.
A STUDENT’S GUIDE ACCREDITATION WHAT IS ACCREDITATION? The process by which a college is certified by a regional accrediting agency, such as the.
The Periodic Review Report and Middle States Accreditation PRR Workshop April 9, 2008.
Preparing a Written Report Prepared by: R Bortolussi MD FRCPC and Noni MacDonald MD FRCPC.
REPORTS.
SELF STUDY: COUNTDOWN TO THE TEAM VISIT MSCHE ANNUAL CONFERENCE – 2009 Debra Klinman.
THE EVALUATION AND POST EVALUATION Evaluator Training Workshop November 4, 2014.
AT Consideration Overview of Issues & Solutions. P ROCEDURAL ISSUES … Consideration / Assessment / Evaluation Integration into IEP Implementation & Progress.
Science Fair Second Draft Check List:  Read the questions presented in this slideshow.  On a separate sheet of paper, take note of components you need.
California Department of Public Health Domain Team Orientation
Family Assessment Service Engagement Event 21 st August 2013 NWCE-9A3GPK.
Domain Champion Updates New Mexico Department of Health.
Preparation of the Self-Study and Documentation
Dutchess Community College Middle States Self-Study 2015
Middle States Conference December 3, 2014
Overview of the FEPAC Accreditation Process
Middle States Update to President’s Cabinet October 8, 2018
Accreditation 2016 A student’s guide.
Preparing for Title IIA Monitoring Review (FY15)
Institutional Self Evaluation Report Team Training
Presentation transcript:

Follow-up Reporting Expectations Part II MSCHE 2009 Annual Conference Mary Ellen Petrisko

Monitoring Reports …when the institution meets the Commissions standards …, but the Commission has concerns about ongoing compliance with one or more standards. …when the institution meets the Commissions standards …, but the Commission has concerns about ongoing compliance with one or more standards. …when the Commission places the institution on warning or probation because of a lack of evidence that the institution is in compliance with one or more standards. …when the Commission places the institution on warning or probation because of a lack of evidence that the institution is in compliance with one or more standards. --Guidelines: Follow-Up Reports and Visits (Draft) --Guidelines: Follow-Up Reports and Visits (Draft)

Supplemental Reports The Commission postpones an accreditation decision and requests a supplemental report when it has insufficient information to substantiate…compliance with one or more accreditation standards. The Commission postpones an accreditation decision and requests a supplemental report when it has insufficient information to substantiate…compliance with one or more accreditation standards. Intended only to allow institution to provide further information, not to give the institution time to formulate plans or initiate remedial action Intended only to allow institution to provide further information, not to give the institution time to formulate plans or initiate remedial action Short-time line Short-time line

Length of monitoring and supplemental reports No length prescribed No length prescribed Previous guidelines said to limit monitoring reports to 25 pages, supplemental reports to 15 Previous guidelines said to limit monitoring reports to 25 pages, supplemental reports to 15 Relatively short reports with well- organized appendices generally the best approach Relatively short reports with well- organized appendices generally the best approach Length should be proportionate to number and complexity of issues addressed Length should be proportionate to number and complexity of issues addressed

Report organization and format As for progress reports As for progress reports Title page Title page Introduction Introduction Progress to date and current status Progress to date and current status Appendices of supporting documentation Appendices of supporting documentation Conclusion Conclusion

Submittal of reports Same as for progress reports Same as for progress reports If paper, four copies bound ONLY by staples or clamps (NO binders or folders) If paper, four copies bound ONLY by staples or clamps (NO binders or folders) –Send to Evaluation Services Office at the Commission If electronic: send as attachments to or If electronic: send as attachments to or

Preparing an effective report READ AND UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSIONS ACTION READ AND UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSIONS ACTION Understand the Commissions underlying concerns and expectations Understand the Commissions underlying concerns and expectations –Read the relevant standard(s) and their fundamental elements in Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education –Review all reports considered by Commission when it took its action

Preparing an effective report, contd Address everything that is required Address everything that is required –Write the report so that it clearly addresses the issues specified in the action –Dont make the readers search for requested information Focus on past and present, not intentions or pledges for the future Focus on past and present, not intentions or pledges for the future –No Im a gonnas

Preparing an effective report, contd Focus on outcomes Focus on outcomes Provide documented evidence Provide documented evidence Be forthright and honest Be forthright and honest Be concise and well organized Be concise and well organized –Respect the readers time and energy: unnecessarily voluminous reports may frustrate and confuse the reader –Avoid data dumps and exclude irrelevant information and documentation

Preparing an effective report, contd Make the report easy to follow Make the report easy to follow –If report is extensive, begin with outline of contents –Use subheadings, charts, bulleted text as appropriate –Clearly label supporting documents and provide clear references to them in text Submit the report on time Submit the report on time –Commission may consider an institution to have voluntarily allowed its accreditation to lapse if its report is not submitted on time

Follow-up visits Commission Liaison Guidance visits Commission Liaison Guidance visits –To provide additional information so that institution fully understands Commissions concerns –Typically conducted by vice president –Discussion of standards and expectations –Schedule varies according to issues at hand –NOT accreditation reviews; no Commission action other than to note visit

Follow-up visits continued Small team visit Small team visit –May be directed after monitoring report or supplemental report –Required after monitoring report if institution is on warning or probation –Liaison identifies peer evaluators for team Number, backgrounds, expertise vary according to issues in report Number, backgrounds, expertise vary according to issues in report –Liaison ordinarily accompanies team as resource

Scheduling of small team visits Typically last one or two days Typically last one or two days At least one week after report due date At least one week after report due date Early enough to allow for completion of team report, institutional response and chairs confidential brief at least two weeks prior to Committee on Follow-up Activities Early enough to allow for completion of team report, institutional response and chairs confidential brief at least two weeks prior to Committee on Follow-up Activities Liaison works with team chair and president on schedule for report submission Liaison works with team chair and president on schedule for report submission

Commission review and actions Follow-up report (and if team visited, the team report, institutional response, and chairs confidential brief) is considered by the Committee on Follow-up Activities (composed of Commissioners) Follow-up report (and if team visited, the team report, institutional response, and chairs confidential brief) is considered by the Committee on Follow-up Activities (composed of Commissioners) Reviewed by Commissioner reader and liaison Reviewed by Commissioner reader and liaison Recommendation for action is forwarded to Commission (March, June and November meetings) Recommendation for action is forwarded to Commission (March, June and November meetings) Commission action is communicated to president, included in Statement of Accreditation Status Commission action is communicated to president, included in Statement of Accreditation Status