Middle States Commission on Higher Education
3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-2680
Phone: 267-284-5000 Fax: 215-662-5501 www.msche.org
Institutional Self-Study and Evaluation Team Visit
Note: This is part of the proposal for refocused accreditation cycle and processes. The final
details will be developed with input from member institutions.
Every eight years an MSCHE-accredited institution undergoes an Evaluation to confirm that the
institution continues to meet the Commission’s Requirements of Affiliation and Standards for
Accreditation. This Evaluation consists of:
1.
2.
3.
4.
An institutional Self-Study;
An off-site documentation review by peer evaluators;
An on-site Evaluation Visit by peer evaluators.
Commission Review of the Self-Study and Evaluation Team Reports
Institutional Self-Study
The Self-Study process:
1. Involves broad participation from the institution’s community;
2. Utilizes information and documentation submitted by the institution to the Commission
in prior years and stored in the Commission’s database;
3. Completes the Evaluation cycle because it is informed by:
a. The previous institutional Self-Study;
b. The results of the peer review of the institution’s annual updates at the mid-point
since the previous Self-Study.
The Self-Study process produces a Self-Study Report that is an analytical self-appraisal in light
of the Commission’s Accreditation Standards and that addresses four topics:
1. The institution’s responses since the previous Evaluation visit to the opportunities for
institutional improvement identified in the previous Self-Study report;
2. The ways in which current institutional priorities are related to the Commission’s
Requirements of Affiliation and Standards for Accreditation;
3. The cumulative results of the institution’s periodic assessments—required in the final
criterion of each Standard—of the dimensions of the institution addressed in the
Standards;
4. Important current opportunities for institutional improvement that the institution intends
to pursue prior to the next Self-Study and Evaluation Team Visit.
Self-Study and Evaluation Team Visit 2
Comments
1. Federal regulations direct an accrediting agency to, among other things, require of each
institution an in-depth self-study, and to have a set of monitoring and evaluation
approaches that enables the agency to identify problems with an institution’s continued
compliance with agency standards, approaches that must include periodic reports, and
collection and analysis of key data and indicators, identified by the agency.
2. Institutional self-appraisal and review of that appraisal by volunteer peer evaluators has
been and remains the heart of regional accreditation and MSCHE accreditation.
3. This eight-year Evaluation cycle, with one main accreditation event, replaces the current
cycle, in which reaffirmation occurs at five-year intervals after both the Decennial
Evaluation and the Periodic Review Report.
Benefits
1. The availability of accumulated institutional data and documentation in the
Commission’s information system through Annual Institutional Updates, the
specification of four topics for the Self-Study Report, and the use of a documentation
review prior to the Evaluation Visit mean that the Self-Study process will remain an
inclusive institution-wide undertaking but will take less time and fewer institutional
resources to prepare than the current process does.
2. The specification of topics for the Self-Study focuses the Self-Study process and report
squarely on institutional improvement.
3. This approach to Self-Study greatly enhances the continuity and coherence of the
accreditation cycle.
Off-site Documentation Review by Peer Evaluators
Approximately six to nine months prior to the site visit, an off-site documentation review is
conducted.
The institution submits documentation and an annotated documentation roadmap indicating
the ways in which the submitted documentation demonstrates that the institution continues to
meet the Requirements of Affiliation and Standards for Accreditation.
A group of volunteer peer evaluators reviews the institution’s documentation and
documentation roadmap and submits a report on its review to the institution and the
Commission.
For each Standard, the evaluators determine that either:
Self-Study and Evaluation Team Visit 3
1. There appear to be issues that should be clarified by the team during the on-site visit;
or
2. There do not appear to be any such issues.
The institution has the opportunity to address in its final Self-Study Report and during the
team visit the areas identified by the off-site review for clarification or verification.
At least one of the off-site documentation peer evaluators will be a member of the onsite
visiting team.
Benefits
The use of an off-site documentation review prior to the Evaluation Team Visit:
1. Introduces one of the most effective features of the current Selected Topics Self-Study
model into all self-studies;
2. Adds another stage of peer review to the evaluation;
3. Ensures an evidence-based approach to Self-Study;
4. Creates an opportunity for institutions to respond to any issues identified during the
documentation review in its final Self-Study Report and during the Evaluation Team
Visit.
On-site Evaluation Visit by Peer Evaluators
A team of peer evaluators reviews the institution’s Self-Study Report and the report of the offsite documentation review and confirms its conclusions in an on-site visit.
At least one member of the team will have also participated in the off-site documentation review.
The Evaluation Team’s responsibilities are to:
1. Confirm that the institution does or does not continue to meet the Requirements of
Affiliation and Standards for Accreditation.
2. Provide a written report to the institution that includes:
a. An analysis of the institution’s documentation and Self-Study Report;
b. Recognition of significant accomplishments, significant progress, or
exemplary/innovative practices;
c. Collegial suggestions for institutional improvements that the institution is free to
follow or not as it sees fit;
d. If the needed institutional improvements rise to the level of one or more of the set
of recommendations provided by the Commission, specification of which
recommendations the Commission should make;
e. If the institution is found to not meet one or more Standards or Requirements of
Affiliation, supporting evidence and analysis for that conclusion and a statement
Self-Study and Evaluation Team Visit 4
of a requirement or requirements describing the actions the institution must take
in order to meet the identified standard(s).
3. Provide a written confidential brief to the Commission that:
a. Summarizes the key findings in the team report;
b. Identifies the recommendations for institutional improvements that the team
proposes the Commission make to the institution;
c. Proposes the accreditation action the Commission should take with regard to the
institution.
Benefits
1. The tighter focus of the Self-Study Report, along with the number of standards in the
2014 Standards for Accreditation, allows for smaller Evaluation Teams.
2. Having the Evaluation Team choose from a set of recommendations for institutional
improvements provided by the Commission frees the team from the current obligation to
craft its own recommendations in light of the Standards and the institution’s situation;
this is intended to allow for greater consistency across teams and institutions.
3. The shift to the Commission as the source of recommendations for institutional
improvement allows for greater consistency in the Commission’s expectations with
regard to the Standards and to institutional improvements, and enhances the
Commission’s interaction and communication with its member institutions.
Commission Review of the Self-Study and Evaluation Team Reports
Commission review of the Self-Study and Evaluation Reports remains essentially the same as at
present. It is a three-tiered peer review process and provides for institutional response.
After the team visit, the institution provides a formal written Institutional Response to the team’s
report that addresses the team’s findings, the team’s proposed recommendations for institutional
improvements, if any, and institutional actions already taken in response to the team’s report.
The Commission’s Committee on Evaluations reviews the institutional Self-Study, the report
from the off-site documentation review, the Evaluation Team Report, and the formal Institutional
Response and endorses or modifies the Team’s proposed recommendations, if any, and proposed
accreditation action, and forwards them to the Commission.
The Commission reviews the Evaluation materials and endorses or modifies the proposed
recommendations and action.
1. If one or more recommendations for institutional improvements are given to the
institution by the Commission, the institution submits in conjunction with its Annual
Self-Study and Evaluation Team Visit 5
Institutional Update responses describing its efforts to date to address the
recommendation(s). See Annual Institutional Update and Follow-Up.
2. If non-compliance with one or more Requirements of Affiliation or Standards for
Accreditation is found, the institution is required to enter Non-Compliance Follow-Up
and its accreditation must be reaffirmed or withdrawn following normal Commission
procedures and within the time frame specified by federal regulations and Commission
policy.