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
  institutions 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 institutions
  accreditationthe 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 Commissions
• 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 Commissions publication,
  Assessing Student Learning and Institutional
  Effectiveness (Appendix 2), to provide guidance
  to institutions and evaluators with regard to the
  Commissions 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 Commissions
  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 institutions 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
  reviewers report are as important as the
  decennial evaluation for an institutions
  accreditation

21

• How does the PRR relate to the
• Commissions accreditation standards?

22
The PRR and the Standards

• Section 2 of the PRR addresses the institutions
  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
  mornings 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
  institutions 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
  Commissions 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 Commissions 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 Committees
  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?