H a n d b o o k for
CONDUCTING
and H O S T I N G
an evaluation visit
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
CONDUCTIN G
and HOSTI NG
AN EVALUATION VISIT
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
Published by the
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
3624 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Telephone: (267) 284–5000
Fax: (215) 662–5501
www.msache.org
© 2004 by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education
All rights reserved.
This first edition of Conducting and Hosting an Evaluation Visit replaces and supersedes all
previous editions of the following handbooks:
Handbook for Evaluation Teams
Handbook for Chairing and Hosting an Evaluation Team
First edition 1958-59
Second edition July 1984
Third edition August 1989
Fourth edition January 1990
Fifth edition August 1994
Sixth edition February 2000
First edition February 1971
Second edition July 1984
Third edition August 1989
Fourth edition January 1990
Fifth edition August 1994
Sixth edition October 2000
Printed in the United States of America
ii
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Contents
Page
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
v
1. Preparing for the Evaluation Team Visit
Evaluation Team Ethics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
Responsibilities of the Team Chair and Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
Dates for the Preliminary and Evaluation Visits, Advance Materials for the
Team Chair, Team Composition, Team Chair’s Preliminary Visit, Candidate
Institutions, Preliminary Visit Activities, Selected Topics Document Review
During the Preliminary Visit, Following the Chair’s Preliminary Visit, and
Communication with Team Members
Checklist for Team Chairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Checklist for Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Team Member Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Advance Materials for the Evaluation Team, Team Assignments,
Understanding the Self-Study, Certification of Eligibility, and
Travel and Housing
Checklist for Evaluation Team Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2. The Team Visit
Planning a Strategy for the Visit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Team Meetings and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Team Visit Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Coordinating Team Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Selected Topics Document Review During the Team Visit . . . . . . . . . 24
Expectations for Evaluation Team Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Developing the Evaluation Team Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Content and Format of Individual Reports, The Team Recommendation,
and Requesting Follow-up
The Oral Report to the Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Completion of Team Member Responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Following the Team Visit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3. The Evaluation Team Report and Beyond
Characteristics of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
The Draft Evaluation Team Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
iii
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Evaluation Team Report Format and Templates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Team Report Template for a Comprehensive or Comprehensive with
Emphases Self-Studies and Template for Selected Topics Self-Studies
The Institution’s Formal Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
The Chair’s Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Template for the Chair’s Brief
Committee on Evaluation Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Commission Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Reporting Deadlines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Use and Distribution of the Evaluation Team Report . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
How to Use a Middle States Evaluation Team Report and Distribution of
Evaluation Team Reports
Miscellaneous. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Letters of Appreciation, Evaluation Costs Charged to the Institution,
Emergencies, and the Commission Website
Appendices
1. Guidelines for Institutions Developing A Documentation Roadmap
for the Selected Topics Model: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2. Guidelines for Generalist Evaluators Conducting a Document Review
for the Selected Topics Model: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3. Sample Cover Page of the Team Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4. Sample Second Page of the Team Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5. Certification of Eligibility for Reaffirmation, Initial Accreditation, or
Candidacy Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6. How to Conduct an Interview During a Team Visit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
7. Middle States Commission on Higher Education Mission Statement . . . . . . 63
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
iv
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Introduction
T
he Middle States Commission on Higher Education is a membership organization
that adopts standards for accreditation and relies heavily on the work of its
volunteer evaluation team members and Chairs. Its accrediting process brings
into constructive interaction many individuals and many institutions from the
academic community of the Middle States region and throughout the nation. This process
consists of two interrelated phases: self-study and peer review.
First, an institution spends approximately 18 to 24 months conducting an intensive
self-study. The purposes of self-study are to clarify the institution’s mission and
objectives, to conduct a thorough analysis of its resources and effectiveness in
attaining those objectives and fulfilling its mission, to demonstrate that the institution
meets the accreditation standards, and to identify ways in which the educational
effectiveness of the institution can be strengthened.
An ideal self-study involves as many faculty, administrators, trustees, and students as
feasible in order to reflect on purposes, performance, and effectiveness; to examine
strengths as well as weaknesses; and to begin to work on solutions to challenges for
improving the institution. A well-planned and clearly focused self-study culminates
in a report that constitutes a realistic planning document.
Second, peer review begins when the Commission selects a team of experienced and
appropriate practitioners to visit the institution and conduct an on-site evaluation,
based upon the institution’s self-study report and the Commission’s primary
document, Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education. The Chair and other
members of the evaluation team, who are selected for their qualifications, are
essential to the accrediting process. They are expected to contribute to a thoughtful
assessment of the institution within the framework of accreditation standards,
measuring the validity of the analysis in the self-study document and drawing upon
the insights the team gains from on-site interviews. To facilitate this process, the
evaluation team and the institution have specific roles and responsibilities.
The evaluation team conducts the visit for the purposes of encouraging constructive
action by the institution and providing the Middle States Commission on Higher
Education with information on which to base its subsequent accreditation decision.
Every member and candidate institution is expected to provide the Commission with any
information deemed pertinent in determining its accreditation or other recognized status.
To this end, the Commission endeavors to maintain complete openness of
communication between itself and the institutions. Failure to give information to the
Commission is sufficient reason for the Commission to reconsider an institution’s status.
v
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
It is also the Commission’s obligation to maintain the confidentiality of information it
receives, consistent with the policy statement, “Collegiality & Public Communication in
the Accreditation Process.”1
This handbook was developed to provide additional information on the joint roles and
responsibilities of the evaluation team and the host institution, and to explain the context
within which the evaluation occurs.
In the evaluation process, interaction between the Commission and an institution can be
summarized as follows:
q The institution examines itself and speaks to its internal and external constituents
and to the Commission through the self-study report.
q A team of academic colleagues, appointed by the Commission, appraises and
advises the institution through the evaluation team report.
q The institution replies to the team report in a written response addressed to the
Commission.
q The team Chair submits a confidential brief to the Commission, summarizing the
team report and conveying the team’s recommendation for accreditation action.
q The Commission staff and the Commission’s Committee on Evaluation Reports
carefully review the institutional self-study document, the evaluation team report,
the institution’s formal response, and the Chair’s brief to formulate a
recommendation to the Commission.
q The full Commission, after considering information gained in the preceding
stages, takes formal accreditation action.
q The institution continues to consider and act on the results of its own self-study
and the advice it has received as part of its on-going self-study and planning
process.
1
vi
Copies of all policy statements and policy guidelines referred to in this handbook are available
as publications on the Commision’s website at www.msache.org.
1
Preparing for the Evaluation Team Visit
A
successful evaluation team is one that not only respects and follows the ethical
guidelines established by the Commission but also conscientiously prepares itself
by studying, in advance, the background materials and other information
received about the institution and the responsibilities of each team member.
In addition, the Chair of a team should be aware of his or her general responsibilities for
the process, including setting the dates for the team visit to the institution and conducting
a preliminary visit. Both the Chair and the institution should recognize their separate
responsibilities for communicating with team members and for making campus
preparations for the visit.
Evaluation Team Ethics
The following policies are provided to guide chairs, evaluators, and institutions regarding
conflicts of interest, employment at institutions, confidentiality, and personal conduct.
Conflicts of Interest. The Commission relies on the personal and professional integrity
of individuals to refuse any assignment when there is even the slightest potential for a
conflict of interest. The Commission staff will not knowingly assign, as a participant in
an evaluation, a person:
q whose home institution is in the state in which the institution to be visited is
located;
q whose home institution is part of the same system;
q who has been, within the past year, a candidate for employment in the institution
to be visited;
1
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
q who has been an appointee or employee of the institution, within the past five
years;
q who has a business, consultative, or other interest in or relationship to the
institution under review and consideration;
q who has a family member who is an employee, board member, or candidate for
employment at the institution;
q who has expressed personal opinions bearing on the accreditability of the
institution;
q who is a graduate of the institution;
q who belongs to the governing board of an institution being discussed; or
q who makes his or her own judgment that there is any other circumstance that
could be perceived as a conflict of interest.
Only in rare cases are exceptions made and, then, only in consultation with the institution
to be visited. To ensure that evaluation team chairs and team members understand the
Commission’s policy on conflicts of interest, each person will receive a copy of the
policy statement and be asked to sign a “Conflict of Interest Statement.”
Employment at Institutions. The institution is expected to respect the process by not
engaging any team member as a consultant for one year following the evaluation.
Similarly, the institution should not consider for permanent employment, within one year
of the evaluation, any member of the evaluation team.
Confidentiality. All evaluators and the Commission are obligated to maintain inviolate
the confidentiality of information they receive, consistent with the Commission’s policy
statement “Collegiality & Public Communication in the Accreditation Process.” This
confidentiality extends to a wide range of items, including all evaluation materials
provided by the institution, exhibit files, notes and observations from interviews,
discussions of team members, discussions with state higher education representatives,
team observations and recommendation to the Commission, and the Commission’s
action.
Personal Conduct. The Commission will not tolerate any instance of unprofessional or
unethical conduct, including instances of substance abuse or of sexual or other forms of
harassment.
Responsibilities of the Team Chair and the Institution
Chairing responsibilities in this process begin well in advance of, and extend beyond, the
team visit. At every stage, the Chair must keep in mind the working definition of
accreditation:
Accreditation indicates that an institution meets standards for accreditation, that it
has appropriate and clearly defined objectives, that it has established conditions
under which they can be achieved, that it is substantially achieving them now, and
that it should be able to continue doing so for the foreseeable future.
The institution and the Commission, in their accountability to the public, depend upon
the validity of judgments that are based on these criteria for accreditation, and the work
of the Chair is central to ensuring this validity.
2
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
The Chair must keep several issues clearly focused for both the host institution and the
team members. First, the primary function of the Commission is not to be an agency for
the enforcement of government policies, except as required because of the Commission’s
status as a federally-recognized accrediting organization. Second, applying its standards,
the Commission makes responsible judgments about the institutional and educational
effectiveness of each college and university, consistent with the institution’s mission and
other unique characteristics.
Some of the team Chair’s procedural responsibilities in preparation for the evaluation
visit follow.
Dates for the Preliminary and Evaluation Visits
Once confirmed, the Chair should contact the institution's president to select dates for the
team visit. Evaluation visits normally begin on a Sunday afternoon and end on the
following Wednesday afternoon. The Chair will be advised if there are different
arrangements. All arrangements must be explicit and double-checked to avoid conflicts
with holidays or special institutional events.
The host institution should make early housing reservations for the team, providing
single rooms in all cases. Team membership will vary, depending upon the size and
complexity of the institution as well as whether branch campuses and other sites will be
visited prior to or concurrent with the team visit. There may be occasions when
evaluation teams will include a state education agency representative and/or a
representative of the system office. Therefore, at least 10 rooms should be reserved until
the team size has been confirmed. It should be noted that somewhat different procedures
may be needed for multi-campus institutions.
The dates for the team visit may be influenced by the institution’s interest in receiving its
accreditation decision by a certain time. Ordinarily, accreditation decisions are made at
the November meeting for institutions visited between April 16 and September 1 of a
given year, at the February or March meeting for those visited between September 2 and
December 15, and at its June meeting for visits between December 16 and April 15.
If reports from the team Chair and the institution are not submitted in a timely fashion,
consideration of the institution’s accreditation must be postponed until the next
scheduled Commission meeting.
When the evaluation dates have been agreed upon, the Chair’s preliminary visit should
occur at least three months before the evaluation visit. Ordinarily, the Chair makes a
single preliminary visit; however, there are rare occasions when two such visits may be
made for justifiable reasons. Nevertheless, the dates for the preliminary and evaluation
visits must be communicated at once to the Commission office.
The type of self-study undertaken by an institution may affect the scheduling of the
preliminary visit. For example, if an institution has undertaken a selected topics approach
to self-study, and it has been determined that the review of documentation relative to the
accreditation standards not encompassed by the selected topics self-study will take place
during the preliminary visit, the Chair may want to schedule this visit 4-6 months in
advance of the full team visit. One or more generalist evaluators usually are assigned
with primary responsibility for this document review, under the guidance of the Chair.
In this instance, the length of the Chair’s preliminary visit may need to be extended
beyond the typical one-day visit. Even if the review of documentation occurs at the time
of the scheduled full team visit, the Chair and the designated generalist evaluator(s) may
want to consider arriving a day early in order to conduct the review.
3
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Until team visit dates are available, team members cannot be invited. The formulation of
evaluation teams is a complicated process. Early information about the dates selected
usually results in an early roster of prospective team members for the Chair and
institution to review at the time of the preliminary visit.
Advance Materials for the Team Chair
As soon as the appointment of the Chair has been confirmed, the institution should send
materials in advance to the Chair, including an institutional catalog and a copy of the
self-study design. If the Chair desires further materials, the institution should provide
them as well. In addition, it is suggested that the Chair receive a draft of the self-study
report at least two weeks prior to conducting the preliminary visit.
The Commission staff will send the Chair and the institution a list of branch campuses
and other off-campus sites, including study abroad programs, that should be visited as
part of the decennial review. Once team members have been invited and confirmed, the
Commission staff will send to the Chair and the institution a roster of evaluation team
members, with copies of their evaluator data forms. The forms provide basic information
about each team member, including educational credentials, professional experiences,
and prior accreditation service.
The Self-Study Design. At the time the Chair’s appointment is confirmed, the institution
sends the Chair a copy of the self-study design, which is the first opportunity for the
Chair to begin to understand the nature of the self-study and its premises. The design
indicates, among other things, the form which the institution’s self-study will take.
In addition, the design includes the rationale, scope, expected outcomes, charge
questions, institutional participants, and timetable for the self-study process.
The Self-Study Approach. The approach to self-study that an institution selects should
be sufficiently broad to meet the institution’s needs, as well as sufficiently thorough to
provide the basic information that will enable the evaluation team and the Commission
to determine whether the institution is fulfilling its stated mission and goals. The
Commission also expects that all the eligibility requirements and accreditation standards
identified and discussed in Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education will be
addressed in the institution’s self-study, with the exception of the selected topics
self-study, or in other materials that the institution presents. The selected topics approach
to self-study enables an institution to focus on selected issues, without having to provide
a comprehensive analysis of institutional programs and services and without having to
address all of the accreditation standards within the self-study document. Designs for
Excellence, the Commission’s primary resource for institutions engaging in self-study,
contains additional information concerning the selected topics approach.
The Self-Study Document. The self-study document, also developed in consultation
with Commission staff, is prepared well in advance of the evaluation visit. It is prefaced
by an executive summary, which provides a narrative abstract and clearly defines the
form of the self-study. In addition, teams are selected to complement the special nature of
the self-study. As the primary source material for the evaluation, the document should be
the focal point of discussions during the team visit.
In order to assure the adequacy of the self-study to support the work of the team, the
Chair should receive a substantive draft of the self-study at least two weeks prior to the
preliminary visit. When the Chair receives the self-study draft, the Chair should read,
reflect upon, and analyze the document. If, after the first reading of the self-study
document, there are any questions about its nature, or if it appears seriously flawed, the
Chair should contact both the Commission staff member assigned to the institution and
the institution itself.
4
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Although the Commission relies on the Chair’s judgment of adequacy, the staff has
responsibility for the final decision as to whether to proceed with or postpone the
evaluation, following consultation with the institution.
The final self-study should be mailed to the Chair, as well as to each member of the
evaluation team, at least six weeks prior to the visit, with the institutional catalog(s), a
budget summary, an organizational chart that includes the names and titles of
administrators, and faculty and student handbooks, a detailed campus map, instructions
for getting to the campus, and transportation information. In addition, the host institution
should request that team members inform the institution’s contact person of their travel
plans. It is important for team members to respond immediately, informing the host
institution how and when they plan to arrive so that necessary arrangements can be made
to transport them to the campus. Concurrent with the mailing to team members, the
institution should send two complete sets of these materials to the Commission office.
Team Composition
Evaluation Team Members. Institutions may provide suggestions regarding evaluation
team composition as part of their self-study designs. Staff then assembles a team roster
appropriate to each institution’s self-study model, ensuring that the Chair and team
members are acceptable to the institution. If possible, the team roster will be sent to the
host institution and to the team Chair prior to the preliminary visit for review and
discussion. On occasion, invited evaluators are unable to confirm their participation in a
timely manner or replacements are needed. In such instances, the team roster will be
shared with the institution and the Chair as soon as each invited person has confirmed
his/her participation.
While most of the team members will come from Middle States institutions, some may be
from other regions. Some also will be serving as evaluators for the first time, but all will
be ready to work according to Commission policies. In addition to training, all team
members receive copies of Commission policies that are appropriate to their visit.
The Chair is responsible for reviewing the team composition in order to understand
the Commission’s rationale in making the selection, to relate the team’s composition to
the self-study design and the self-study document, and to decide how the various team
members will be deployed. The final decisions are made on the basis of the team
members’ expertise and experience and their concurrence with the assignment.
To accomplish this purpose, the Chair examines the evaluation data forms and other
information provided by the Commission staff, makes preliminary assignments based on
the expertise and experience of each individual, and consults with team members well in
advance of the visit to ensure that they are comfortable with their assignments.
The Chair should inform the Commission staff member, following consultation with the
host institution, whether the composition of the team is appropriate given the nature of
the institution and the self-study. If appropriate, changes will be made in the team
composition, upon request from the institution’s chief executive officer or designee
and/or the team Chair. However, the final decision about team membership remains with
the Commission and its staff.
Other Participants: Representatives from State Education Agencies/University
Systems. Over the years, the Commission has maintained a good working relationship
with the state education agencies and university systems in the Middle States region and
is committed to maintaining these relationships, without compromising its independence
as a nongovernmental organization. State education agencies are notified when the
evaluation schedule is prepared each year. When the Commission receives, in a timely
5
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
manner, the names of interested individuals from appropriate state or other agencies,
those names will appear on the official team roster.
State representatives typically will have specific responsibilities that are different from
those of the team members. Their presence is beneficial in providing information on the
relationship between the institution and either the state education agency or the system
office, as well as providing assistance in interpreting state education regulations. While
serving as an available resource to the team, these representatives are free to make their
own reports to their respective agencies.
For additional information concerning the participation of representatives from state
education agencies in the evaluation visit, refer to the policy statement “Working
Relationships between State Agencies and the MSCHE.”
Collaborative Evaluation Visits. If the institution is having a collaborative evaluation
visit (i.e., with Middle States and one or more specialized program accreditors), the team
will include individuals selected by the specialized accreditors. For more information
about collaborative visits, see the publication Handbook for Collaborative Reviews.
Evaluation Team Associates. Teams also may be accompanied by an evaluation team
associate or by others, such as educators from overseas, who are interested in the peer
review process. The associate may be a faculty member or administrator of a candidate or
member institution who recognizes service on a Middle States evaluation team as an
opportunity for professional development. If the host institution and Chair have agreed to
have an associate join the evaluation team, the associate will be present at the expense of
his or her own institution. Both the Chair and the host institution will receive specific
information about the role of an associate, when one is assigned.
It is the policy of the Commission that team participants who are not full team members
have access to all materials relevant to the evaluation and may participate, under the
general guidance of the team Chair, in all team discussions. However, they do not
contribute directly to the team’s report to the institution, nor do they have a voice in
determining its recommendation to the Commission.
Team Chair’s Preliminary Visit
Not less than three months before the evaluation team visit, the Chair will make a
one-day preliminary visit to the institution. The visit may need to be lengthened if the
Chair will be working with one or more generalist evaluators to conduct the selected
topics document review during the preliminary visit, or for other justifiable reasons.
In the context of materials distributed in advance to the Chair, the preliminary visit will
assist the institution in understanding how the team will operate and will assist the Chair
in planning how best to deploy the team. It will provide a clear impression of the
institution, its people, and its environment, so that the Chair and team can begin the
evaluation visit with a minimum of lost time.
At the Chair’s preliminary visit for a selected topics self-study, the Chair will focus on
topics selected by the institution for its self-study, and will also use meetings during the
visit to gather general information about the institution that provides useful background
for the topics selected.
The Chair will verify that the number, location, and scope of the institution’s current
off-campus sites—including branch campuses, additional locations, other instructional
sites, and any study abroad programs, as defined in Designs for Excellence, are consistent
with the draft self-study report and with information provided by Commission staff. The
Chair, in consultation with the institution, also will recommend to Commission staff
when branch campuses and selected additional locations will be visited—either prior to
6
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
or concurrent with the team visit—so as to enable the Chair to complete the team report
in a timely manner, consistent with the Commission’s schedule for review.
In preparation for these off-campus visits, it should be noted that the Commission and/or
the team Chair designates team members to visit each branch campus, one-third of the
additional locations, and at least one study abroad site if the institution’s study abroad
programs enroll more than 200 students annually. Given the circumstances at a particular
institution, the Commission may, at its discretion, decide that it is appropriate to visit a
different number of off-campus sites.
At the very beginning of the preliminary visit, the Chair and the institution should reach a
broad understanding on the nature of the team assignments and the contributions each
person will be expected to make to the final evaluation report. The Commission expects
either the Chair, the host institution, or both to confirm that the team suits the
institution’s self-study plan and that no one who has been assigned to a team has any
known conflict of interest. If necessary, changes will be made in the team composition,
upon request from the institution’s chief executive officer or designee and/or the team
Chair. However, as previously stated, the final decision about team membership remains
with the Commission and its staff.
Candidate Institutions
If the institution being visited is a candidate for initial accreditation, the preliminary visit
offers the team Chair and the institution a last minute check to determine whether or not
the institution really is ready to be evaluated.
The Chair receives the draft self-study at least two weeks prior to the preliminary visit in
order to gauge the appropriateness and thoroughness of the report, but not the
accreditability of the institution. In many instances, an unfavorable appraisal of an
institution simply indicates that further preparation is advisable and a new, later date
should be set for the evaluation. However, the preliminary visit may result in a
realization that the institution is seriously deficient in important ways which had not
surfaced earlier. In that case, the institution may consider it wise to postpone the
evaluation indefinitely or to withdraw voluntarily from candidate status.
Following the preliminary visit to the candidate institution, the team chair should send a
letter to the Commission staff person assigned to the institution commenting on the
readiness of the institution to host an evaluation team.
Preliminary Visit Activities
The following activities involve both the Chair and the institution during the Chair’s
preliminary visit. Adjustments to the preliminary visit schedule and agenda may be
needed in the event that an institution has undertaken a selected topics approach to
self-study. If the document review associated with a selected topics self-study is to take
place during the preliminary visit, the Chair and the institution should modify the
schedule and agenda accordingly.
Site Visit. Typically, the preliminary visit is conducted in one day, but there may be
occasions, particularly for large and complex institutions, when a two-day visit is
appropriate and necessary. The Chair should be given a tour of the campus, preferably
limited to those places where the team members will spend most of their time, such as the
meeting facilities. The Chair also should visit the hotel or motel where the team will be
housed.
7
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Meetings. The president should have an opportunity, if possible, to give the Chair a
confidential briefing on any institutional issues.
In addition, the Chair should meet with at least the following groups of people during the
preliminary visit:
ü representatives of the institution’s governing board;
ü key administrative officers;
ü the self-study steering committee; and
ü student and faculty representatives.
Discussion Topics. Discussions with all institutional representatives should include how
they are involved in the self-study and preparations for the evaluation team visit; what
they want to get out of the process; what they hope the team will do; and who are the key
people on campus that team members should meet, in addition to those in line and staff
positions. Discussions with the steering committee should focus on the draft self-study
document.
In addition, the Chair and the institution should discuss at least the following specific
topics:
q the clarity and adequacy of the draft self-study document;
q the composition of the team roster, if it is available, in light of the areas required
to be covered by the design for the self-study;
q if applicable, when visits to branch campuses, additional locations, and study
abroad programs should be scheduled; what transportation will be provided; and
how these sites and programs will be included in the team’s deliberations;
q when the institution will send the self-study materials to the team members and to
the Commission;
q the facilities and services that the institution will provide for the team visit,
including the following:
t housing (single rooms only, all in one place), and how the institution will
arrange to be billed directly for housing costs (Note: Team members are
responsible for their personal expenses;
t a large conference room at the hotel, available at all times for the use of
team members;
t a conference room on campus for the use of team members to review
materials and a smaller room in which to conduct interviews or meet in
small groups;
t meals and snacks (both on campus and off campus);
t someone on campus having responsibility for making appointments for
team members with campus personnel during the team visit;
t a designated telephone number on campus which team members can leave
with their offices and homes; and
t computers and printers, on campus and at the hotel, for the team to use
and the designation of a technology support person.
q the team visit schedule;
8
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
q a get-acquainted session;
NOTE. The customary opening for the full team visit is a program—which may be a
reception, a dinner, or both—sponsored by the host institution. At this program, team
members and a few of the host staff establish the tone for the visit. Plans should be made
carefully to keep the program simple and brief, not elaborate or expensive. The team visit
is not a social occasion, and it is the responsibility of both the Chair and the president to
guard the team’s time and the institution’s financial resources.
q team meetings on campus;
NOTE. As with the preliminary visit of the Chair, the team visit also should include
meetings with various groups on campus, such as the self-study steering committee,
students, the faculty council, the president’s staff, and the board of trustees. In addition,
the Chair might consider a scheduled “open walk-in meeting” for any member of the
institution who wants to meet with team members.
All arrangements that involve the team should be communicated by the Chair to the team
members well in advance of the visit so that they can plan their individual schedules
accordingly and avoid last-minute scheduling.
q which institutional representatives will be present at the exit interview, during
which the Chair will make an oral report to the institution about the evaluation
visit;
NOTE. Given the participatory nature of the process on campus, there should be broad
institutional representation at the exit interview.
q the timetable for completing the team draft report, the preliminary institutional
response to factual errors, the final report, and the formal institutional response.
Selected Topics Document Review During the Preliminary Visit
If the document review associated with a selected topics self-study is conducted during
the Chair’s preliminary visit, the team Chair and one (or in complex instances, two)
designated generalist evaluator(s) will use a roadmap provided by the institution to
review the documentation and to verify institutional compliance with those standards that
are not substantively reflected in the self-study. Information pertaining to the conduct of
the selected topics document review during the team visit can be found in Chapter II.
The team Chair and the designated generalist evaluator prepare a brief written report,
affirming and certifying that the institution meets accreditation standards not being
addressed within the selected topics model or noting any areas where compliance is in
question. This summary report should identify any standards for which the institution
will need to provide further or updated information at the time of the team visit.
Otherwise, the report simply affirms that the documentation demonstrates that the
institution meets the specified accreditation standards. This summary report, which notes
any standards for which compliance is in question but does not include recommendations
for general institutional improvement, is shared with the institution and with the members
of the evaluation team. See Appendix 1, “Guidelines for Institutions Developing a
Documentation Roadmap,” and Appendix 2, “Guidelines for Generalist Evaluators
Conducting a Document Review.”
Prior to the conduct of the documentation review, Commission staff will arrange a
telephone conference call involving representatives from the institution (e.g., the
chief executive officer and the steering committee chairs), the team Chair, and
designated generalist(s) to discuss the roadmap and plans for the documentation
review.
9
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
At the Chair’s preliminary visit for a selected topics self-study, the Chair will focus on
topics selected by the institution for its self-study, and also will use meetings during the
visit to gather information about the institution that provides useful background
information for the topics selected.
Following the Chair’s Preliminary Visit
Vouchers and Questions. When chairs receive the letter confirming their chairing
assignment, they also will receive an expense voucher on which to report preliminary
visit costs. This voucher should be submitted to the Commission office immediately
following the preliminary visit.
In addition, the Chair, the president, or both should contact the Commission staff,
immediately following the preliminary visit, if there are questions about the institution’s
preparation for the evaluation, if there is a significant omission in the team roster, or if
there is an imbalance in the proposed team.
Communication with Team Members. The Chair usually communicates with team
members at least twice. First, following the preliminary visit, the Chair writes to team
members telling them where they will be housed, the time and place of the first meeting,
and when they can reasonably expect to complete the team assignment, along with
practical items of information. (If the institution has particular responsibilities for
communications with team members, the team Chair and the institution will have agreed
to these during the preliminary visit.) Second, at least six weeks before the evaluation,
the Chair informs team members of their work assignments.
The team Chair is strongly advised to attempt to contact the team members, either before
or after the work assignments are communicated, so that any necessary adjustments can
be made before the visit. Most chairs make these contacts by telephone or e-mail. The
Chair also can use this opportunity to determine if team members have areas of expertise
of which the Chair was not previously aware. These communications can be used also to
help orient the team members to the institution, to reinforce their responsibilities during
the visit, and to consider the institution’s expectations for the visit.
Checklist for Team Chairs
Prior to the Preliminary Visit
q Have you been in contact with the institution to set dates for the preliminary visit
and the full evaluation team visit?
q Have you communicated the dates for the preliminary and evaluation visits to the
Commission office?
q Have you received and reviewed the institution’s self-study design?
q Have you reviewed the institution’s draft self-study (which you should receive
at least two weeks prior to the visit) and, if applicable, the preliminary list of
branch campuses and other off-campus sites to be visited as a part of the
decennial review?
q Have you developed a schedule and agenda, in consultation with the host
institution, for the preliminary visit? (See the preceding pages for a list of
discussion topics to be addressed during the preliminary visit.)
10
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
q If the host institution is using the selected topics approach to self-study, have you
reviewed the “Guidelines for Generalist Evaluators Conducting a Document
Review”?
q If the host institution is using the selected topics approach to self-study, has a
telephone conference call been scheduled prior to the documentation review that
will involve the Commission staff liaison, team Chair, designated generalist(s),
and institutional representatives? [Note: You should have received and reviewed
the documentation roadmap prior to the telephone conference call.]
Following the Preliminary Visit
q Have you submitted your expense voucher, with original receipts, to the
Commission office for expenses incurred during the preliminary visit?
q If not previously communicated, have you contacted Commission staff regarding
the composition of the team and its appropriateness given the nature of the
institution and the self-study?
q If the institution is a candidate for initial accreditation, have you submitted a letter
to the Commission staff regarding the readiness of the institution for the
evaluation visit?
q If the selected topics document review was conducted during the preliminary
visit, did you receive the final report relative to the document review from the
Commission staff liaison within two weeks following the visit?
Prior to the Evaluation Visit
q Have you been in contact with team members regarding their individual team
assignments (primary and secondary), and have you informed them of the time
and place of the initial team meeting?
q Have you been in contact with the individual team members regarding
transportation logistics and other arrangements? Or, have you made certain that
the institution will be in contact with individual members of the team regarding
these matters?
q Have all necessary transportation arrangements been made by the institution:
airport/train station to hotel; hotel to institution, etc.?
q Have meetings with specific groups (Board of Trustees, Steering Committee, etc.)
been set in advance?
q Have you developed a suggested format for the draft reports to be submitted by
team members? (See Chapter 3 for team report templates.)
During the Visit
q Have you discussed with the team the type of self-study conducted by the
institution and the implications for the team’s evaluative work?
q Has there been an early opportunity during the visit to get feedback from the
institution regarding any area of the institution that appears not to have been
touched upon during team interviews?
11
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
q Have the time, place, and invited audience for the exit interview been set?
q Is the proposed report format understood by team members?
The Oral Report
q Have you met privately with the institution’s president, prior to the presentation
of the oral report, to review the team’s primary findings?
q Have you prepared an oral report which is consistent, in content and tone, with
the findings, suggestions, recommendations, and requirements that will be cited in
the team’s written report?
q Have you checked your prepared remarks to ensure that no reference will be made
to the team’s recommendation to the Commission for accreditation action?
Following the Evaluation Visit
q Have you submitted an expense voucher, with original receipts, to the
Commission office for expenses incurred during the evaluation visit?
q Have you sent letters of appreciation to the chief executive officers of each
evaluator’s home campus?
The Team Report
q Does the team report reflect and make reference to Characteristics of Excellence
in Higher Education where appropriate?
q Does the team report adhere to the appropriate team report template as detailed in
Chapter 3?
q Does the team report make a clear distinction between suggestions and
recommendations for institutional improvement and requirements regarding
institutional compliance with MSCHE standards?
q Are all areas where the institution does not meet one or more accreditation
standards clearly supported by findings and documentation?
q Does the report include findings related to the institution’s compliance with the
Commission’s eligibility requirements?
q Does the report list all of the individuals interviewed by members of the team
during the evaluation visit?
q Have you made certain that the team report does not contain the team’s
recommendation to the Commission for accreditation action?
q Have you submitted the draft team report to the institution within two weeks of
the evaluation visit?
q Has the institution reviewed and responded to the draft team report (checking for
errors of fact) within 10 days?
q Have you submitted the final version of the report to the institution and have you
sent four copies to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (within
seven days of receipt of the corrected draft, and no less than one month from date
of the meeting of the Committee on Evaluation Reports)?
12
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
The Chair’s Brief
q Does the Chair's brief adhere to the template detailed in Chapter 3?
q Does the Chair’s brief reflect the substance and tone of the full team report?
q Does the brief summarize the key findings of the team?
q Are the team’s recommendations for accreditation action and the
rationale/evidence in support of it included in the brief? (It is inappropriate
to include information in the Chair’s brief that is not reflected in the team report.)
q Is the brief free of anecdotal information, perspectives, and/or interpretations not
found in the team report?
q Does the brief include the team’s recommended accreditation action, consistent
with the Commission’s policy statement and guidelines for Commission actions
and standardized action language?
q Have 50 copies of the Chair’s brief been mailed to the Middle States Commission
on Higher Education (to be sent immediately after the final report is completed)?
Checklist for Institutions
Prior to the Preliminary Visit
q Has the institution sent a copy of its self-study design and institutional catalog to
the team Chair?
q Has the team Chair been in contact with the institution to set dates for the
preliminary visit and the full team evaluation visit?
q Has the institution sent a copy of its draft self-study to the team Chair?
(The draft report should be sent at least two weeks prior to the team chair’s
preliminary visit.)
q Has the institution, in consultation with the team Chair, reviewed, if applicable,
the preliminary list of branch campuses and other off-campus sites to be visited as
a part of the decennial review?
q Has the institution, in consultation with the team Chair, developed a schedule and
agenda for the preliminary visit? (See pages 7-9 for a list of activities and issues
to be addressed during the preliminary visit.)
q Has the institution, if it has chosen the selected topics approach to self-study,
reviewed and utilized the Commission’s “Guidelines for Institutions Developing a
Documentation Roadmap”?
q If the institution is using the selected topics approach to self-study, has a
telephone conference call been scheduled prior to the documentation review that
will involve the Commission staff liaison, team Chair, designated generalist(s),
and institutional representatives? [Note: The team chair and generalist(s) should
receive the draft self-study and documentation roadmap prior to the telephone
conference call.]
13
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Following the Preliminary Visit
q If not previously communicated, have you contacted Commission staff regarding
the composition of the team and its appropriateness given the nature of the
institution and the self-study?
q If the selected topics document review was conducted during the preliminary
visit, has the institution received the final report relative to the document review
from the Commission staff liaison within two weeks of the visit?
Prior to the Evaluation Visit
q Has the institution handled all logistical arrangements (overnight
accommodations, team meeting room, resource room, equipment, transportation
arrangements, etc.)?
q Has the institution been in contact with each team member regarding travel plans
and transportation arrangements?
q Has the institution completed the Eligibility Certification Statement to certify that
it meets or continues to meet the Commission’s eligibility requirements?
q At least six weeks prior to the evaluation visit, has the institution mailed to
members of the team a copy of the final self-study, as well as the other materials,
such as catalogs, a budget summary, an organizational chart, and faculty and
student handbooks, as noted on the following page as “Advance Materials for the
Evaluation Team”?
q Has the institution mailed two complete sets of the final self-study materials
mentioned above to the Middle States Commision on Higher Education?
q At least four weeks prior to the evaluation visit, has the institution sent each
member of the team a detailed campus map, directions to the campus, along with
any other logistical information?
The Team Report and the Institutional Response
q Has the institution reviewed the draft team report for errors of fact, and returned it
to the team chair, within ten days of receipt?
q Has the institution developed a formal response to the evaluation team report and
mailed it, along with 50 copies, to the Middle States Commission on Higher
Education?
Team Member Preparation
Team members should prepare themselves for their role as evaluators by studying in
advance the materials forwarded by the Commission staff, the Chair, and the institution,
giving particular attention to understanding the institution’s self-study document.
All members of an evaluation team have the responsibility to ensure that they are
thoroughly familiar with Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education and have
reviewed carefully all documents relevant to the visit. The Commission considers this
preparation so essential that any team member who cannot undertake it should withdraw
from the team.
14
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
First-time team members and first-time Chairs are invited to attend a training workshop
for an orientation to the process, with special emphasis on evaluating the self-study
report and understanding their specific roles and responsibilities in the accreditation
process. Commission staff also extend the invitation to team members who have not
served in recent years.
Advance Materials for the Evaluation Team
At least six weeks prior to the evaluation team visit, the Commission staff will send
materials in advance to team members, including a roster identifying who will be their
colleagues on the team, as well as a copy of this handbook, a copy of Characteristics of
Excellence in Higher Education, and other pertinent documents. In preparation for the
visit, team members should begin studying these documents as soon as they are received.
Staff also may send team members copies of policy statements that relate to the
accreditation process in general or to the particular circumstances of the institution being
evaluated. These Commission policy statements are not inflexible standards against
which every institution must be measured. Rather, they identify principles and describe
practices, drawn from the cumulative academic experience, that have proven to be useful
guidelines. They all require thoughtful study, because they affect the work of the team.
Also six weeks prior to the visit, the institution will send team members a copy of its
self-study document, the institution’s catalog(s), a budget summary, an organizational
chart that includes the names and titles of administrators, and faculty and student
handbooks. (Note: For electronic catalogs and/or handbooks, please identify the URL
within the letter or memorandum of transmittal and at appropriate places within the
self-study text.) These materials, which should be reviewed as soon as they are received,
will provide team members with a general idea of the nature of the institution, the
structure of its governance, the style of student life, and the scope of the institution’s
programs.
At least four weeks in advance of the visit dates, the institution should send each team
member a detailed campus map, directions to the campus, transportation information—
including specific details related to parking, meeting trains, planes, and buses—and a
request that team members inform the institution of travel plans. It is important for team
members to respond immediately, informing the host institution how and when they plan
to arrive so that necessary arrangements can be made to transport them to the campus.
Team Assignments
The team Chair will send team members information about where they will be housed,
the time and place of the first meeting, and when they should expect to complete the
visit.
The Chair also will identify the team assignments: special areas of responsibility for each
team member. The Chair will consult with each team member before making final
assignments. However, each person must be flexible and be prepared to cover multiple
areas. Receiving a specific assignment does not diminish the need for each team member
to study thoroughly the entire self-study document.
First-time evaluators may be assigned by the Chair to work with an experienced
evaluator, who will help to provide an orientation to the process.
15
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Understanding the Self-Study
In preparation for the team visit, team members must review the institution’s entire
self-study document. This report is the major source of information about the institution.
It defines the context in which the institution will be examined and is the focus of team
discussions during the visit. It represents a serious effort on the part of the institution and,
therefore, requires an equally serious response as team members or other participants
prepare for the evaluation visit.
It is important to note, at the outset, the type of self-study the institution has prepared:
whether it is a comprehensive (or comprehensive with emphasis), selected topics, or
collaborative self-study. An institution seeking initial accreditation will conduct an
in-depth assessment of all aspects of the institution, using a comprehensive approach to
self-study, but an institution being evaluated for reaffirmation may conduct a self-study
which best serves its current needs.
The comprehensive self-study enables a college or university to appraise every
aspect of its program and services, governing and supporting structures,
resources, and educational outcomes in relation to the institution’s mission and
goals.
The comprehensive with emphasis self-study is a variant of the basic
comprehensive model. It is particularly useful for an institution wishing to give
special attention to selected issues that affect it.
The selected topics self-study allows an already-accredited institution to devote
concentrated attention to selected issues, without having to provide
comprehensive analysis of institutional programs and services and without having
to address all accreditation standards within the self-study report. Prior to or
during the actual evaluation visit, the institution will present documentation
to demonstrate compliance with those accreditation standards that are not
addressed substantially within the selected topics self-study.
The collaborative self-study enables an institution to participate in a cooperative
review process, in which the accredited institution invites institutional,
specialized, or professional accrediting organizations; state or federal agencies; or
other organizations to join the Middle States Commission on Higher Education in
a review of the institution. The purpose of a collaborative self-study and team
visit is to avoid duplication of effort and resources. The institution is expected
to satisfy each organization’s accreditation or other standards and requirements in
a manner acceptable to the organization.
The purpose of the team visit is to determine whether or not the institution meets the
Commission’s accreditation standards, using the institution’s self-study as a foundation
for that determination. Because the type of the self-study provides the specific context for
the evaluation, serious problems may arise if the team misunderstands the model that has
been selected or does not respect the premises of the institution’s self-study. On the other
hand, having fully considered the model and premises of the self-study as presented by
the institution, the team may demonstrate the relevance of other factors in their
deliberations and recommendations. For a complete description of various self-study
models, see Designs for Excellence.
16
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
The Self-Study Review. Team members should bear in mind that, in planning its
self-study, an institution is urged, within the framework of accreditation standards, to
address the following questions:
q What are the institution’s mission, goals, and objectives, and what educational
obligations has it assumed?
q Are these appropriate in its present time and place and for its present
constituency?
q Are all the institution’s activities consistent with its mission, goals, and
objectives?
q Are its programs and activities designed to achieve its goals and objectives?
q Is there solid evidence that they are being achieved?
q Are the human, physical, and fiscal resources needed to achieve institutional aims
available now? Are they likely to be available for the foreseeable future?
Team members should prepare, in advance of the team visit, their comments on the above
questions. In addition, team members should prepare their answers to the following
questions in order to ensure that the institution has adhered to the Commission’s
standards and expectations:
q Did the institution involve at least its internal constituents throughout the
self-study process? The involvement of external constituents also may be
considered appropriate.
q What else is there to know about the institution, and where on campus should
additional information be sought?
q What are the institution’s strengths and weaknesses?
q Is the evidence on outcomes, including the assessment of student learning,
adequate to support a judgment on the institution’s effectiveness in achieving its
objectives?
q How do the parts of the document fit together?
q At what point(s) does the self-study need further interpretation or elaboration?
q Are there inconsistencies which need clarification?
q Who are the people to be interviewed?
q What additional documents should be examined?
By being prepared, team members will be better able to take systematic notes during the
visit, develop insights based on their on-site observations, and participate with focus in
the team deliberations. The questions and comments of team members also will constitute
the nucleus of the written report each member makes to the Chair, before leaving the
campus at the end of the visit.
Certification of Eligibility
In order to help institutions demonstrate compliance with the Commission’s eligibility
requirements and to assist evaluation teams in completing their work, the Commission
has developed an Eligibility Certification Statement (see Appendix 5). An institution
undergoing initial or decennial review is expected to use the statement to certify that it
17
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
meets or continues to meet eligibility requirements, and to provide any additional
materials or information that may be relevant.
The Eligibility Certification Statement will generally be included with the self-study as
an appendix item. If the institution has not completed the certification statement, the
evaluation team will need to inquire about institutional compliance with Middle States
eligibility requirements. Findings related to compliance with eligibility requirements
should be included in the evaluation team report.
Travel and Housing
Travel. Team members and others who work with the team should make their travel
arrangements at an early date.
In selecting an arrival time, it is important that everyone is present for the opening
session arranged by the team Chair.
For all who travel on Commission business—team members but not others who work
with teams (e.g., team associates as well as representatives from state education
agencies or university systems)—it is the Commission’s policy to pay reasonable travel
expenses, including transportation, meals and lodging. In the choice of means of
transportation, a balance must be struck between the need for economy and the efficient
use of time. Team members are urged to use public transportation whenever possible, and
air and rail travel at coach fare rates. The “Travel Expense Guidelines,” submitted with
the initial materials that the Commission distributes, contains instructions relating to
travel and housing, and a copy is available as a publication on the Commission’s website.
Housing. Single rooms will be reserved for each team member by the host institution,
which normally pays for all meals and room charges directly, unless the institution and
the Commission have made other arrangements. If the latter applies, team members will
be so apprised by the team Chair.
Checklist for Evaluation Team Members
Prior to the Evaluation Visit
q Have you reviewed carefully the institution’s mission statement, as well as related
statements (vision statement, institutional goals)?
q Have you reviewed the Commission’s statement of standards in Characteristics of
Excellence in Higher Education, with particular attention to those sections related
to your primary and secondary areas of responsibility?
q Have you read the entire self-study carefully, with particular attention to those
topics assigned to you by the Chair?
q Have you reviewed the supplementary materials sent by the institution
(e.g., the catalog, handbooks, etc.)?
q Do you understand the self-study approach utilized by the institution and the ways
in which that approach may affect the work of the team?
q Have you prepared a list of the individuals or groups you wish to interview?
18
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
q Based on your review of the self-study and MSCHE materials, have you
developed:
t preliminary questions regarding the overall self-study and institution?
t preliminary questions for your areas of particular responsibility?
t a list of self-study documents to be reviewed?
t a list of other documents to be requested on-site?
q Have you informed the institution of your travel plans and transportation
arrangements?
q Do you have the needed information regarding travel and housing arrangements,
as well as the time and place of the initial team meeting?
Generalist Evaluators for Selected Topics
q Have you reviewed the Commission’s “Guidelines for Generalist Evaluators
Conducting a Document Review”?
q Has a telephone conference call been scheduled prior to the documentation review
that will involve the Commission staff liaison, the team Chair, the designated
generalist(s), and institutional representatives? [Note: You should receive the
institution's draft self-study and documentation roadmap prior to the telephone
conference call.]
q Have you provided a copy of the final report to the Commission staff liaison
within two weeks of the document review? [The Commission staff liaison will
forward the report to the institution, the team chair, and the evaluation team
members.]
During the Visit
q Have your interviews exposed you to a variety of perspectives on key issues?
q Have team discussions allowed you to check and verify your findings with other
team members?
q Do you understand the format guidelines for your written report, as set by the
Chair? (See Chapter 3 for team report templates.)
q Does your written report reflect and make reference to Characteristics of
Excellence in Higher Education where appropriate?
q Are all areas where the institution does not meet one or more accreditation
standards clearly supported by findings and documentation?
q Does your individual written report make a clear distinction between suggestions
and recommendations for institutional improvement, and requirements regarding
institutional compliance with MSCHE standards?
q Does your individual report list all of the individuals interviewed during the visit?
After the Evaluation Visit
q Have you submitted your expense voucher, with original receipts, to the
Commission office for expenses incurred during the evaluation visit?
19
2
The Team Visit
T
he team visit begins with an initial team meeting, the host’s get-acquainted
program, and the first working session of the team. The principal activities for the
two days which follow include interviews and visits with people on campus, with
time scheduled for daily team meetings. In the final stage of the visit, team
members prepare their individual reports and assist in preparing the Chair’s oral and
written reports. Team members also should be aware of team participation and
expectations, as well as activities to be avoided.
The Chair’s responsibilities include:
ü reviewing and analyzing the self-study document,
ü planning for the deployment of the team and coordinating their activities during
the visit,
ü offering the team guidance relative to the range of accreditation actions, and
ü making an oral report to the institution.
Planning a Strategy for the Visit
The Chair must plan the strategy for the visit so that the team will seek answers to at least
the following types of questions:
q What else is there to know about the institution?
q Does the self-study need amplification or interpretation?
q Are there inconsistencies that need clarification?
q What appear to be the institution’s strengths and weaknesses?
q How do on-site documents provide support to the self-study report?
20
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
q Is the evidence on outcomes, including the assessment of student learning,
sufficiently sound to support a judgment on the institution’s effectiveness in
achieving its objectives?
q Who are the principal people to be interviewed?
q How can the team be deployed best to address key questions?
The Chair writes to team members, assigning specific areas for their special attention,
although some team members may share assignments for certain aspects of the visit. The
Chair should make it clear that initial team assignments are tentative and that adjustments
may be needed when the team actually begins its work. However, the Chair should stress
the obligation of each team member to review the entire self-study document and to bear
in mind that the institution as a whole is being evaluated.
It is very important that the Chair advise the team to arrive fully prepared for the visit.
Each team member should prepare his or her list of questions regarding the document,
a list of any strengths and weaknesses that may be apparent, a list of people to visit and
documents to be examined, and any reactions to the self-study document. The Chair is
encouraged to establish early contact with members of the team in order to gauge their
initial reaction to the self-study.
The initial team meeting is a good time for the Chair to distribute a sample report format
and instructions for team members to follow in writing their individual reports. Team
members also must be reminded of the need to be familiar with Characteristics of
Excellence in Higher Education, which delineates the standards and criteria by which the
team will make its judgments.
Team Meetings and Activities
During the Chair’s initial communications with the evaluation team, and in any
subsequent team discussions, the following issues should be explored:
Strengths and Weaknesses. The team should understand that a fair team evaluation of
an institution assesses its strengths and weaknesses within the context of the
Commission’s accreditation standards. Noteworthy achievements and/or special potential
should receive praise. If team members give the impression that their purpose is to
uncover weaknesses, more harm than good will be done. Institutions expect and deserve
the assistance of honest, constructive criticism; but neglecting the positive side of an
evaluation can diminish both the usefulness and validity of negative observation.
Focusing the Visit. Institutions of higher education increasingly are being challenged by
their various internal and external stakeholders to demonstrate, in meaningful ways, that
the institutions are effective in accomplishing their goals and objectives, especially with
regard to teaching, learning, and overall institutional effectiveness. The Commission
believes that evaluation can be done best by focusing the evaluation on planning for
instruction; how plans for teaching and learning are implemented to achieve course,
program or institutional goals and/or objectives; and specifically the institution’s
progress in implementing and utilizing outcomes assessment findings.
The Commission has identified certain basic characteristics of an institution’s outcomes
assessment activities. Although it does not prescribe specific methods or approaches for
assessment, it offers general guidelines on outcomes assessment in Characteristics of
Excellence in Higher Education, the Commission’s primary statement of standards, and
in the handbook Student Learning Assessment: Options and Resources. For guidelines
concerning the assessment of information literacy, see the Commission’s publication
21
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Developing Research and Communication Skills: Guidelines for Information Literacy in
the Curriculum.
Off-campus Sites. Evaluators assigned to visit branch campuses or other off-campus
sites, including study abroad locations, should consult the appropriate sections of
Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education. In some instances, these evaluators
may not be able to join the main campus site visit, and the Chair will provide specific
guidance for this aspect of the evaluation and report writing.
Level of Effort. Team members should be prepared, in their level of effort, to work
steadily and hard during the evaluation visit. There is no time for anything except the
team task. If it appears that team discussions are continuing too late into the night, the
matter should be discussed with the Chair.
The rewards of the experience usually are greater than the demands it makes, including
interaction with campus people and team colleagues, the opportunity to gain a thorough
knowledge of an institution other than one’s own, and involvement in a significant effort
to improve higher education in the Middle States region. While a team visit is very
helpful to the host institution, it is also an extremely valuable professional experience for
visitors.
Team Visit Schedule
An evaluation visit usually extends through four days, as illustrated in the table below.
Morning
Afternoon/Evening
Ø Arrive
Ø Initial Team Meeting (Orientation)
Ø Institution’s Get-acquainted Program
Sunday
Ø First Working Session (Review of
Self-Study; Planning)
Ø Lunch with Campus People (Faculty/
staff/students/trustees)
Monday
Ø Interviews and Visits
Ø Interviews and Visits
Ø Brief Team Meeting (Optional)
Ø Team Dinner
Ø Team Meeting (Review, discuss, plan)
Ø Lunch with Campus People (Faculty/
staff/students/trustees)
Ø Interviews and Visits
Tuesday
Ø Interviews and Visits
Ø Team Dinner
Ø Brief Team Meeting
Ø Team Meeting (Review findings, reach
consensus)
Ø Independent Report Writing
Ø Team Lunch (Optional)
Ø Finish Independent Report Writing
Wednesday
22
Ø Chair Prepares Oral Report
Ø Oral Summary for Institutional
Representatives
Ø Leave Campus
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Coordinating Team Activities
As stated earlier, the Chair must ensure that the team remains properly oriented. Team
members should approach their tasks as professional peers, not as inspectors. They must
avoid the trivial, remembering that a fair evaluation notes strengths as well as
weaknesses. If the aim is only to find fault and weaknesses, or to compare everything
with home campuses, more harm than good will be done. Team discussions must be held
in the context of the institution’s mission, goals, and objectives, looking for solid
evidence of the degree to which the institution is complying with the Commission’s
standards for accreditation, achieving its stated objectives, and fulfilling its mission.
Initial Team Meeting. Orientation continues during the initial team meeting, which
should be held at least one hour prior to the get-acquainted program with institutional
representatives. This initial meeting, usually held on Sunday, also enables the Chair to
introduce team members to their colleagues, discuss the institution’s self-study approach
and model, gather first impressions about the institution’s self-study, confirm the team
assignments that were previously sent to team members, and establish or refine the visit
schedule.
The Chair also should remind team members of the confidential nature of all evaluation
materials, conferences, and conclusions. The Chair may share with the team any last
minute or confidential information that is pertinent.
For new evaluators, it is sometimes helpful to assign an experienced evaluator to serve as
a mentor; and this is essential if the inexperienced evaluator was unable to attend a
training workshop. The Chair should consider setting aside some time, either
immediately before or after the Sunday afternoon working session, to conduct an
orientation for first-time evaluators. In addition, evaluation team associates, who are
selected by the Commission, may be assigned to work with other team members,
although the Chair should give some time to help the associate understand the evaluation
process.
The Chair must exercise judgment and discretion in determining how best to work with
the representative of a state education agency or a university system office. They are free
to follow their own schedule, as long as it does not conflict with the team’s activities.
If an institution objects to the participation of a state or system representative, or if other
questions arise with respect to those representatives, the Chair should call the
Commission office.
It is the policy of the Commission that team participants who are not full team
members—whether they are evaluation team associates or representatives of state
education agencies or university systems—have access to all materials relevant to the
evaluation and may participate, at the discretion of the Chair, in all team discussions.
However, they do not contribute directly to the team’s report to the institution, nor do
they have a voice in determining its recommendation to the Commission regarding
accreditation.
Host’s Get-acquainted Program. The host institution, usually on Sunday, sponsors
a host’s get-acquainted program, which may be a reception, a dinner, or both. Team
members are guests and colleagues, invited by the institution to discuss the self-study and
to offer the kind of rigorous constructive criticism that comes from informed, and
objective colleagues. During an evaluation visit, team members and campus personnel
engage in a professional dialogue that may include technical, discipline-specific, and
management discussions. Such useful exchanges begin in the informal setting of the
get-acquainted program, which is the team’s first contact with the institution and sets the
tone for the evaluation. The Commission and the Chair make certain that the institution
understands the need for the program to be simple and brief, not elaborate or expensive.
23
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Because the team visit is not a social occasion, it is important to guard the team’s time
and the institution’s financial resources.
Chair’s Conferences. During the team visit, the Chair should talk with many people to
gain a better understanding of the institution. The first conference, whether alone or in
the presence of others, should be a working session with the president as the chief
executive officer. The Chair should maintain contact with the president throughout the
visit, checking to see if he or she perceives any problems with the evaluation as it is
progressing. Either alone or with other team members, the Chair must confer with the
board of trustees; the institution’s president ordinarily should not be present at this
meeting. However, through other contacts, the Chair attempts to get a multi-dimensional
view of the institution, rather than limiting contacts and interviews to high-level officers.
The Chair must take careful notes during these meetings, for it is the Chair who must
write the final team report.
Selected Topics Document Review During the Team Visit
If the document review associated with a selected topics self-study is conducted during
the evaluation team visit, the team Chair and one (or in complex instances, two)
designated generalist evaluator(s) will use a “roadmap” provided by the institution to
review the documentation and verify institutional compliance with those standards that
are not substantively reflected in the self-study. If needed to verify compliance,
additional information may be requested during the visit. Information pertaining to the
conduct of the selected topics document review during the preliminary visit can be found
in Chapter 1. Prior to the conduct of the documentation review, the Commission staff
will arrange a telephone conference call involving representatives from the institution
(e.g., the chief executive officer and the steering committee chair), and designated
generalist(s) to discuss the roadmap and plans for the documentation review.
The team Chair and the designated generalist evaluator prepare a brief written report,
affirming and certifying that the institution meets accreditation standards not being
addressed within the selected topics model or noting any areas where compliance is in
question. Otherwise, the report simply affirms that the documentation demonstrates that
the institution meets the specified accreditation standards. This summary report, which
notes any standards for which compliance is in question but does not include
recommendations for general institutional improvement, is shared with the institution and
with the members of the evaluation team. See Appendix 1, “Guidelines for Institutions
Developing a Documentation Roadmap,” and Appendix 2, “Guidelines for Generalist
Evaluators Conducting a Document Review.”
Expectations for Evaluation Team Discussions
Campus Interviews. Members of the evaluation team should interview the institution’s
officers, division and/or department heads, staff members, faculty, and students, paying
careful attention to balance and representation in sampling who should be interviewed.
One of the strengths of the evaluation process is the variety of approaches, backgrounds,
and experiences brought to it by team members. The Commission expects the team
to conduct interviews as inquiries in the spirit of professional peers, rather than as
inspectors, and to ascertain how well the institution’s educational goals and objectives
are realized in campus practice. Therefore, the substance and form of interviews should
be related directly to Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education and to the
self-study, and the interviews should be based on questions and concerns identified in
preparing for the visit. (See Appendix 6, “How to Conduct an Interview During a Team
Visit,” for suggested approaches to campus interviews.)
24
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
In scheduling interviews, allow sufficient time to follow leads, to collect impressions
widely, to check information adequately, and to compare perceptions from and with all
concerned. An earnest effort must be made to circulate about the campus, meeting people
and gathering information. Every team member should talk with as many students as time
permits, and group interviews are often both productive and time-saving. Careful notes
must be kept, building on or modifying those made during the first analysis of the
self-study document.
Team Conferences. The team Chair carefully organizes team conferences, determining
in advance what will be accomplished at each working session. While the Chair should
not monopolize the discussions, he or she must give firm leadership. For example, the
Chair should call upon each team member for a brief report, encourage discussion, and
ensure that all comments are germane to the issue being discussed. In addition, because
team meetings are held in the evenings, the Chair should establish in advance, and adhere
to, a reasonable closing hour.
The major strength of an evaluation is the work of the team, and it pays to spend a
considerable amount of time in team conferences. This is one reason why the entire team
should be lodged at the same location. Rather than reach decisions individually or by
vote, team members should pool resources, stimulate and question each other, and
perhaps even debate until a consensus is achieved. These discussions are also key to
preparing team members for their role in developing the final report.
During the team’s first working session (and thereafter as needed), the Chair clarifies the
roles and responsibilities of the team members. Specifically, the Chair
ü leads a discussion of preliminary impressions of the self-study materials
The Chair encourages colleagues to express their views, identifies any blind spots
and perhaps biases, discusses the questions and observations each team member
has compiled from an analysis of the institution’s materials, and guards against a
priori conclusions while establishing working hypotheses as points of departure
for the team’s work on Monday.
ü plans individual and team activities, settles the timetable for each day, and
assigns individual responsibilities for interviews
Unless the specialized focus of the self-study dictates otherwise, major
administrators, department heads, and as many faculty members and students as
possible should be consulted. A group meeting with the self-study steering
committee and a meeting with the board of trustees must be included in the
schedule. The Chair also coordinates and provides guidance to team members
who are evaluating off-campus offerings.
ü advises team members to use both formal and informal contacts for their
discussions
Group interviews in some cases are often productive and time-saving. As the visit
proceeds, the Chair should ensure that the team is making progress toward
completing its assigned interviews of campus people, to make sure that the range
of people to be interviewed is as complete as possible, and that no one who must
be seen is omitted.
25
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
ü discourages classroom visits as a means of assessing overall institutional
teaching and learning outcomes
Reliable judgments on the quality of instruction that is characteristic of the
institution as a whole cannot be made through visits to only a few classes.
Analysis of outcomes data presented in the institutional self-study or available on
campus will provide more trustworthy evidence. During the preliminary visit, the
Chair should make clear to the president why team members will not visit classes.
ü reminds team members not to be drawn into debates on the relative merits of
specific approaches to certain problems
As representatives of the Commission, they should make clear, for example, that
the Commission neither prescribes nor recommends specific practices in such
issues as collective bargaining, teaching loads, or class size. However, the
Commission is concerned with the impact of whatever arrangements the
institution has adopted on the quality and effectiveness of its educational work.
ü advises team members not to compare the situation they are observing with
their home campuses
Evaluators must keep in mind, as they talk with people on campus, that the
Commission is not a standardizing agency. Instead, the Commission evaluates
institutions based on evidence of the demonstrated achievement of stated
objectives and compliance with accreditation standards. Therefore, the central
question team members seek to answer in all instances is whether the institution
meets accreditation standards and whether a given program, procedure,
curriculum, or other activity functions effectively in light of the institution’s
stated mission, goals, and objectives. Team members should make every effort to
understand the institution being visited within the context of its own mission and
other unique characteristics.
ü points out that the team must apply the standards in Characteristics of
Excellence in Higher Education consistently to all institutions, in light of the
stated mission and goals of each institution
ü indicates to team members that they will be expected to offer their critiques
as specialists and to incorporate their notes into the team’s report, but their
focus as representatives of the Middle States Commission on Higher
Education is always institutional
ü informs team members that they must give their individual reports to the
Chair before leaving campus, preferably by Tuesday evening
The Chair should urge team members to begin at once to record their reactions,
judgments, and questions and to work on their reports throughout the visit.
t It is strongly suggested that the Chair prepare a format that clearly
outlines how team members should write their reports. The format should
be designed so that it will elicit the kinds of reports from individual team
members that will be useful for a coherent final team report. See
templates for evaluation team reports in Chapter 3.
26
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
t Furthermore, the Chair should remind team members that they must cite
specific documents or other evidence as justification for all observations,
conclusions, and recommendations, and they should list all of the
individuals they interviewed.
ü prepares the team for what is expected during the final team meeting
The team report presents the team’s point of view on all major issues, reflecting
the consensus reached during the final team meeting. When expressing this point
of view in the final report, team members and the Chair should distinguish clearly
among the following three levels:
t Suggestions. Team members may make suggestions for institutional
improvement, based on accreditation standards, the collective
professional experiences of the team members, or the Commission’s
non-binding recommendations in its various published guidelines which
have been developed with peer input.
t Recommendations. Team members should identify those areas of the
institution where improvement is advised in order for the institution to
continue to meet the standards in Characteristics of Excellence in Higher
Education. The team report should state specifically in what ways the
institution is at risk of failing to meet the standards and, when
appropriate, it should offer recommendations for improvement.
t Requirements. Team members should indicate when improvement is
required to meet the Commission’s standards in Characteristics of
Excellence in Higher Education. The team report should state
specifically in what ways the institution fails to meet the standards
and, when appropriate, it should specify particular steps that should
be taken.
In the context of these suggestions, recommendations, and/or requirements, as
appropriate, the team should address the institution’s performance with respect to
student achievement, teaching, and overall institutional effectiveness, as framed
by the standards for accreditation.
Achieving consensus on the team’s recommended Commission accreditation
action is a major task at the final team meeting. For this purpose, the team should
utilize the language outlined in the Commission's policy statement and guidelines
for Commission actions and standardized action language that accompanies this
handbook.
The team members are reminded that a Commission action always applies to the
total institution. At the final team session, the team should review the proposed
content of the entire team report— including team findings, suggestions for
improvement, recommendations, and requirements—and ensure that the team’s
recommended Commission action is summarized and that a consensus has been
achieved. It is imperative that no team member leave before this summary
conference. The Chair is obliged to convey to the Commission—without
modification—the team’s recommendation on accreditation.
27
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
ü reminds the team members of their obligation of confidentiality
The confidential nature of all evaluation materials, conferences, and conclusions
must be emphasized. Team members must understand clearly that the
recommendation regarding accreditation is not to be communicated to anyone
outside the team. Furthermore, the team’s recommendation for Commission
action must not appear in the report itself; it belongs only in the brief which the
Chair prepares as a confidential document for the Commission only. The team’s
recommendation is merely a recommendation and is subject to possible
modification by the Commission. Confusion and embarrassment could be created
by communicating the team's recommendation to the institution.
Developing the Evaluation Team Report
Contributing to the findings that appear in the final team report, as presented by the
Chair, concludes the work of team members. However, the Chair also makes three
presentations of the team’s findings: (1) an oral report to the institution;
(2) the final written report; and (3) a written brief to the Commission. The process
terminates when the members of the team send to the Commission a confidential critique
of the team Chair, the Chair sends a critique of members of the team, the team members
report their expenses, and the Commission acts.
Prior to finalizing the team report, it is suggested that the Chair share a copy of the draft
with members of the team. While the final report must reflect faithfully the team’s
conclusions and points of consensus, the Chair relies extensively on the written reports
from team members and is not bound to a verbatim transcription of their words.
Content and Format of Individual Reports
Before leaving the campus, team members must write reports on their assigned areas of
responsibility and any other areas where they have been asked to contribute, submitting
them to the team Chair. The Chair’s final report can only be as good as the information
team members provide.
Chairs may vary in their preference for the format of individual team member reports, but
teams are advised to use the Commission’s team report templates as a guide. Each area of
responsibility, as assigned by the team chair, should be presented on a separate sheet of
paper.
The baseline requirements for individual team member reports should include the
following summary of evidence and findings:
q Significant accomplishments, significant progress, or exemplary/innovative
practices. (optional; not required for all standards)
q Suggestions. Team members may make suggestions for institutional
improvement, based on accreditation standards, the collective professional
experiences of the team members, or the Commission’s non-binding
recommendations in its various published guidelines which have been developed
with peer input.
28
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
q Recommendations. Team members should identify those areas of the institution
where improvement is advised in order for the institution to continue to meet the
standards in Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education. The team report
should state specifically in what ways the institution is at risk of failing to meet
the standards, and when appropriate, it should offer recommendations for
improvement.
q Requirements. Team members should indicate when improvement is required to
meet the Commission’s standards in Characteristics of Excellence in Higher
Education. The team report should state specifically in what ways the institution
fails to meet the standards, and when appropriate, it should specify particular
steps that should be taken.
q General observations about the institution and about the quality and substance of
the self-study should be included.
q Specific documents or other evidence must be cited as justification for all
observations and conclusions.
q All of the individuals interviewed should be listed, in a manner to be determined
by the Chair.
The Team Recommendation
The team is expected to reach a consensus, if possible, on which action to recommend to
the Commission. The wording of the recommendation regarding an accreditation action
should be consistent with the policy statement and guidelines for Commission actions
and standardized action language. The recommended action should be written out as
complete text, not merely referred to by number. The team’s recommendation, however,
does not appear in the final evaluation report. The team recommendation for
accreditation action will appear in the Chair’s brief. (See Chapter 3 for additional
information.)
Requesting Follow-up
Requests for follow-up (progress letter or monitoring report) should not be included as a
pro forma or routine part of a team’s recommendation. The team should bear in mind that
each accredited institution must submit a periodic review report (PRR) in the fifth year
following reaffirmation of accreditation. This report provides the Commission with an
overview of the institution and responds to the report of the last evaluation, unless an
earlier response has been requested. The Commission may decide, in the light of the
PRR, that an evaluation is needed earlier than normally would be the case, but under no
circumstances will more than 10 years elapse without an evaluation visit to any
institution, nor more than five years following initial accreditation. These circumstances
may influence the team’s decision on requesting a progress letter or monitoring report.
The challenge to the team is to achieve a balance between recommended actions that
provide for appropriate and necessary follow-up and recommended actions that may
unduly burden an institution because they require reports or visits which appear to be an
imposition, rather than a means for further assisting the institution. Here, the Chair’s
judgment and experience must serve as guides. The Commission, of course, will exercise
its own discretion in every case.
29
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
The Oral Report to the Institution
In a final session with the president and other representatives of the host institution, the
Chair orally presents a candid preview of the written evaluation report; all team members
should be present at this briefing. Prior to the oral report, the team Chair should meet
privately with the institution’s president to review the team’s primary findings. The final
session often is open to all members of the internal campus community. However,
because this exit report is an internal institutional event, external parties, such as the
press, should not be present, nor should the session be videotaped or otherwise recorded.
During this oral presentation, the Chair makes no reference to the team’s
recommendation regarding accreditation.
Making the oral report is one of the most important and most challenging aspects of
chairing a team. Candor, clarity, and conviction should characterize the presentation.
An exact summary of the written report must be presented, except for the team’s
accreditation recommendation to the Commission. It is imperative that the content and
tone of the oral report be consistent with the written report, and both should make
appropriate reference to the Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education.
The content and tone of the oral report should be discussed with the team before the
presentation. This is advisable for team collegiality and for consistency of findings,
suggestions, recommendations, and requirements. The oral report should leave no doubt
about institutional strengths and weaknesses as perceived by the team. If the team finds
the institution deficient in meeting one of more of the standards for accreditation, those
deficiencies should be cited in both the oral and the written reports. A candid report will
not endanger the confidentiality of the team’s recommended accreditation action, because
the specific recommendation to the Commission must not be revealed. The institution
will have a full opportunity later to respond to the team report before it is considered by
the Commission.
Completion of Team Member Responsibilities
Once team members have submitted their final reports to the team Chair and have
attended the presentation of the Chair’s oral report to the institution, their responsibility
to both the institution and the Commission for the assignment has ended. Each team
member assigned by the Commission will receive a copy of the team report and will be
informed of the action taken by the Commission. Questions thereafter about any part of
the evaluation process should be directed to the Commission office. Any inquiries from
the press or other agencies or persons should be directed to the executive director of the
Commission.
Following the Team Visit
Expenses. An expense voucher for the evaluation visit will be included in the final
mailing to the team, and it is important that the Chair and team members report their
expenses immediately following the visit. Receipts must accompany all vouchers.
Evaluators are expected to pay for all personal items, such as newspapers, bar bills, dry
cleaning and laundry, and movies in hotel rooms. If charges for these items appear on
expense vouchers, they will be deducted from claims for reimbursement. Telephone calls
and certain other items are subject to the current guidelines published in “Travel Expense
Guidelines,” which is available from the Commission office and is a publication on the
Commission’s website.
30
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
No payments should be made by or accepted from the host institution. The Commission
will not provide expense vouchers to those who are working with the team, such as state
education agency representatives, other agency representatives, or team associates,
because they must report their expenses to their own organizations or institutions.
In addition to reimbursement for expenses, evaluators assigned by the Middle States
Commission on Higher Education will receive a modest honorarium to defray personal
expenses. The current amounts are listed in the “Schedule of Dues and Fees,” also a
publication on the website.
To meet budget deadlines, institutions require billing at an early date, and the
Commission must collect within its fiscal year funds spent on evaluations. Therefore,
if team members do not submit expense vouchers and receipts within one month after the
last day of the campus visit, the honorarium will be paid, but the team member may
forfeit travel expense reimbursement.
Housing. The host institution normally pays all room and meal charges directly, unless
the Commission has made special arrangements. If the latter applies, the Chair will be
notified of the arrangements.
Evaluation of Team Members. The Chair’s evaluation of team members should be
completed and submitted along with the completed expense voucher, immediately
following the visit. This form, to be submitted after the evaluation, will be held in
confidence.
Evaluation of Team Chair. Team members assigned by the Commission will receive, in
their initial packet of materials, a form requesting a brief and candid evaluation of the
team Chair. This form, to be completed after the evaluation, will be held in confidence.
Workshop Evaluations. First-time evaluators who attended an evaluator training
workshop sponsored by the Commission will receive a second form, requesting an
evaluation of the team training workshop, such as whether the session helped in
preparation for the team work, what suggestions team members have for improving the
sessions, and whether the handbook was useful for team members.
31
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
3
The Evaluation Team Report and Beyond
T
he Chair is wholly responsible for writing the report and should do so
immediately following the visit, before his or her recollection of the details
begins to fade. However, the Chair and the institution share responsibilities for
distributing the team report in its draft and final stages. This section also contains
two templates for use by team chairs to develop evaluation team reports. One template is
for team reports written in response to comprehensive and comprehensive with emphases
self-studies. The second template is intended for team reports that address selected topics
self-studies.
Characteristics of the Report
The Chair relies heavily upon comments and ideas drawn from team colleagues, but the
report should be neither an editorial nor a scissors-and-paste composition. Instead, it
should be a well-organized and cogent document. All major points in the oral report must
be included, and the report must reflect honestly the views of the team. Differences of
opinion should not be indicated, and individual team members should not be identified.
In addition, the team report must be checked to ensure that it:
ü speaks directly to accreditation standards
ü responds to the approach used by the institution in its self-study
This is especially important when the self-study is developed from an
analysis of selected topics.
ü concentrates on fundamentals
There should be ample attention to significant achievements and critical
problems; nitpicking must be avoided.
32
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
ü carefully distinguishes between the team’s suggestions for improvements,
recommendations when it appears the institution is at risk of failing to comply
with the Commission’s standards, and requirements that an institution must act on
in order to comply with the Commission’s standards.
ü emphasizes the importance of outcomes and the assessment of both overall
institutional effectiveness and student learning
Outcomes are the chief indicators of an institution’s achievement of its
objectives, and they should receive particular attention. Any discussion of
outcomes should highlight the institution’s performance with respect to
student achievement but also include teaching and overall institutional
effectiveness.
ü is cautious about departmental evaluation
Observations should be made on academic programs in general. However, if
it is necessary to discuss particular departments and their impact on
programs within and outside those departments, reports should include the
compelling reasons for such observations.
ü does not contain long descriptions of what the institution already knows
ü is consistent with the content and tone of the oral report presented during the
evaluation visit
The written report should not raise issues, such as deficiencies in meeting
the Commission’s standards, that were not cited during the oral report.
ü recognizes, when appropriate, the relevance of special exhibits or other sources of
additional information supplied by the institution during the visit
ü provides a rationale and evidence for the team’s recommendations.
In addition, the Chair must make certain that the report has not:
ü been written in a highly prescriptive tone
ü named individuals, either in praise or blame
ü advocated or advised against unionization or any other mode of collective
bargaining, nor appeared to question the particular political or ecclesiastical
sponsorship of the institution
The team’s observations should be concerned with these subjects only in
regard to their impact on the institution’s freedom to pursue its objectives,
without limitations that diminish academic effectiveness.
ü advocated or advised against specialized accreditation, nor cited the formulas or
requirements of any other agencies
The criteria of other accrediting organizations often are useful to an
institution, but the Commission does not endorse specifically the standards
of these other organizations.
ü advanced the educational theories of the Chair or the team members as solutions
to problems that have been identified
33
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
ü revealed what will be the team’s specific accreditation recommendation to the
Commission for accreditation action
Because the team does not make the decision on accreditation, the
institution could be confused, and the team embarrassed, by communicating
a recommendation which might be modified by the Commission.
In order to make the team report most useful to the institution, the team report will
ordinarily follow the organization of the self-study rather than the organization of
Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education. However, the team will determine
explicitly if any suggestions, recommendations, and/or requirements should be noted for
each accreditation standard.
The Draft Evaluation Team Report
The Commission staff will notify the Chair and the institution of: (1) the date the final
report is due in the Commission’s office, (2) the due date for the institution’s response to
the team report, and (3) the date and location for the Chair’s presentation of the brief and
report. Given the number of evaluations scheduled each year, the Commission rarely is
able to grant extensions on these dates.
Distributing the Draft Evaluation Team Report. Before leaving the campus, the Chair
and the president should discuss this phase of the process. Within two weeks of the visit,
the first draft of the team report should be completed and a copy sent to the president of
the institution.
It must be marked clearly as “DRAFT” and bear the date on which the report was sent.
A copy of the draft should not be sent to the Commission office.
The institution’s response to the draft report must be in writing, and no more than
10 days can be allowed for the institution to return the draft to the Chair with any
suggested corrections. This response to the team’s draft report is distinct from the formal
institutional response the institution must submit prior to Commission consideration.
At this juncture, the Chair wants assistance only in eliminating errors of fact, ambiguity,
or any unnecessary abrasiveness. The Chair must give serious consideration to all
proposed revisions, but in the end, the Chair determines what needs to be said so as to
reflect accurately the team consensus.
If the institution has not provided a written response within the 10-day period, it is
Commission policy that the Chair has the right to reproduce the document as the final
report.
Final Team Report. Within two weeks following the conclusion of the evaluation, the
Commission staff will send the institution a set of mailing labels for individuals who
should receive a copy of the final report. The labels are for the members of the
Commission, members of the evaluation team (but not associates designated by the
Commission), and the Commission office.
The final report is addressed to the faculty, administration, board of trustees, staff, and
students of the institution. The Chair sends the original report to the institution, with a
copy to the Commission staff. Normally, the institution acknowledges, prior to the team
visit, that it will reproduce and mail the final report to individuals on the list that the
Commission provides.
34
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Occasionally, the Chair will be asked to reproduce and mail the final report, and he or
she then will receive the mailing labels. In either instance, both the institution and the
Chair will receive copies of the appropriate procedural memoranda. Before making the
decision to ask the Chair to be responsible for distribution, the institution should note the
difference in mailing costs. It could be several times more costly if the Chair, rather than
the institution, reproduces and mails the final report. However, the actual cost should not
exceed the rates specified on the Commission’s current “Schedule of Dues and Fees.”
The procedures for mailing the final report to the host institution and to the Commission
are as follows:
q One copy, by first class mail, to each person for whom a mailing label has been
supplied, with the envelope clearly stamped “CONFIDENTIAL”; and
q Four copies to the Commission office at 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19104-2680.
If the institution wishes to send copies to state education agency representatives, heads of
multi-unit and regional systems, the chief executive officer of any other accrediting
agency involved in joint evaluations, evaluation team associates, or any person who is
not a member of the MSCHE team, the decision and the costs are entirely those of the
institution. The Commission itself does not share evaluation team reports with
government or other public or private agencies or individuals, unless explicitly permitted
in writing by the institution to do so.
Evaluation Team Report Format and Templates
A sample cover page for the final evaluation report appears in Appendix 3; the cover
page must include the paragraph shown at the bottom of the sample page.
The second page of the report provides information relevant to the time of the evaluation
visit and should include the names of the president, chief academic officer, and Chair of
the Board of Trustees (Appendix 4).
The report should be printed single-spaced, on 8-1/2" x 11" paper, using at least a
12-point font. It should be no more than 10 to 20 pages in length, characterized by
brevity, clarity, and substance. The sheets should be reproduced with text on both sides
of the paper (two-sided copies), and the reports should be stapled in the upper left-hand
corner but NOT bound.
Team Report Template for Comprehensive or
Comprehensive with Emphases Self-Studies
I. Context and Nature of the Visit
Ø institutional overview
Ø scope of institution at the time of the evaluation (information drawn from the
“Statement of Accreditation Status”), including:
degree level(s)
branch campuses
additional locations
distance learning
other
(note: include certificate/diploma programs)
(note: all must be visited)
(mark with “*” those that were visited)
(list programs for which 50% or more is offered via DL)
(e.g., contractual arrangements, consortia, etc.)
Ø self-study process and report (self-study design/model, level of participation)
35
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
II. Affirmation of Continued Compliance with Eligibility Requirements
Based on a review of the self-study, other institutional documents, and interviews,
the team affirms that the institution continues to meet eligibility requirements 1-7
(Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education, p. xi).
(Note: If the institution continues to meet eligibility requirements, no further
details are necessary. If the team cannot affirm continued compliance with
eligibility requirements 1-7, specific details must be provided.)
III. Compliance with Federal Requirements; Issues Relative to State Regulatory or
Other Accrediting Agency Requirements
Based on review of the self-study, other institutional documents, and interviews,
the team affirms that the institution’s Title IV cohort default rate is within federal
limits or that the institution has an acceptable plan in place to address federal
compliance issues.
(Note: If the team cannot affirm compliance with these federal requirements,
specific details must be provided.)
(If the team is aware of any issues relative to state regulatory requirements or the
institution’s status with other [e.g., programmatic] accrediting agencies, those
issues should be noted here.)
IV. Compliance with Accreditation Standards
(Note: The format below reflects the 14 accreditation standards. As an alternative
and at the team Chair’s discretion, this section of the team report may follow the
structure of the institution’s self-study [e.g., related standards may be grouped
together], as long as there is a clear designation of how the 14 standards align
with the alternative format. The template for Standard 1 is provided as an
example, and this format should be replicated for the other standards.)
Standards 1: Mission, Goals, and Objectives
The institution meets this standard.
(OR, if the team cannot affirm compliance, state “The institution does not meet
this standard,” and provide details under “Summary of evidence and findings”
and “Requirements” below.)
Ø Summary of evidence and findings
Based on a review of the self-study, other institutional documents, and
interviews with faculty, staff, students, and others, the team developed the
following conclusions relative to this standard:
(narrative or bulleted points that reflect, collectively, the fundamental
elements)
Ø Significant accomplishments, significant progress, or exemplary/innovative
practices (optional)
Ø Suggestions for improvement (optional consultative advice; “suggestions”
do not warrant Commission follow-up)
Ø Recommendations (institutional actions needed to assure continuing
compliance; “recommendations” warrant Commission follow-up through
either a progress letter or a monitoring report)
36
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Ø Requirements (institutional actions needed to achieve compliance with the
standard; “requirements” necessitate Commission action of postponement,
warning, probation, or show cause)
V. Summary of team recommendations and requirements
(Note: This summary forms the basis for the accreditation action the team is
recommending to the Commission; it does not include the team’s suggestions for
improvement. Frame each recommendation or requirement by first quoting in full
the related accreditation standard, and then present the specific team
recommendation or requirement.)
Team Report Template for Selected Topics Self-Studies
I. Context and Nature of the Visit
Ø institutional overview
Ø scope of institution at the time of the evaluation (information drawn from the
“Statement of Accreditation Status”), including:
degree level(s)
branch campuses
additional locations
distance learning
other
(note: include certificate/diploma programs)
(note: all must be visited)
(mark with “*” those that were visited)
(list programs for which 50% or more is offered via DL)
(e.g., contractual arrangements, consortia, etc.)
Ø self-study process and report (self-study design/model, level of participation)
II. Affirmation of Continued Compliance with Eligibility Requirements
Based on review of the self-study, other institutional documents, and interviews, the
team affirms that the institution continues to meet eligibility requirements 1-7
(Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education, p. xi).
(Note: If the institution continues to meet eligibility requirements, no further details
are necessary. If the team cannot affirm continued compliance with eligibility
requirements 1-7, specific details must be provided.)
III. Compliance with Federal Requirements; Issues Relative to State Regulatory or
Other Accrediting Agency Requirements
Based on review of the self-study, other institutional documents, and interviews, the
team affirms that the institution’s Title IV cohort default rate is within federal limits
or that the institution has an acceptable plan in place to address federal compliance
issues.
(Note: If the team cannot affirm compliance with these federal requirements, specific
details must be provided.)
(If the team is aware of any issues relative to state regulatory requirements or the
institution’s status with other [e.g., programmatic] accrediting agencies, those issues
should be noted here.)
37
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
IV. Compliance with Accreditation Standards
(Note: The format in this section, including subparts A, B, and C, should be guided
by the “documentation roadmap” developed by the institution for its selected topics
self-study. The sample format below assumes that the team report is organized
according to accreditation standards. As an alternative, and at the team chair’s
discretion, Section IV of the team report may follow the structure of the institution’s
self-study, as long as it is clear how specific accreditation standards align with the
alternative format. The template for Standard 7 is provided as an example; the format
would be replicated as needed.)
A. Standards Addressed Substantively within the Selected Topics
Standard 7: Institutional Assessment
The institution meets this standard.
(OR if the team cannot affirm compliance, state “The institution does not meet
this standard” and provide details under “Summary of evidence and findings”
and “Requirements” below.)
Ø Summary of evidence and findings
Based on review of the self-study, other institutional documents,
and interviews with faculty, staff, students, and others, the team
developed the following conclusions relative to this standard:
(narrative or bulleted points that reflect, collectively, the
fundamental elements)
Ø Significant accomplishments, significant progress, or
exemplary/innovative practices (optional)
Ø Suggestions for improvement (optional consultative advice;
“suggestions” do not warrant Commission follow-up)
Ø Recommendations (institutional actions needed to assure continuing
compliance; “recommendations” warrant Commission follow-up
through either a progress letter or a monitoring report)
Ø Requirements (institutional actions needed to achieve compliance with
the standard; “requirements” necessitate Commission action of
postponement, warning, probation, or show cause)
(and then continuing to follow this same format for all standards
substantively addressed within the Selected Topics)
B. Standards Addressed Partially within the Selected Topics
(follow the same format as in IV.A. above)
C. Standards Reviewed via Documentation (Not within the Selected Topics)
Based on the review of documentation, the team has determined:
The institution meets the following standards:
(list by number and name)
The institution does not meet the following standards:
(list by number and name)
38
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
(Note: List the standards only, and either integrate the generalist evaluators’
report here or attach a copy to this team report. During its visit, the team itself
will not evaluate compliance with standards not addressed within the Selected
Topics; the team will rely on the generalist evaluators’ report.)
V. Summary of Team Recommendations and Requirements
(Note: This summary forms the basis for the accreditation action the team is
recommending to the Commission; it does not include the team’s suggestions
for improvement. Frame each team recommendation or requirement by first
quoting in full the related accreditation standard. Then present the specific
team recommendation or requirement.)
The Institution’s Formal Response
The institution must submit a thoughtful written response to the team report before the
Commission will act on an evaluation team’s report. Within two weeks following the
evaluation, the Commission staff will send the institution a memorandum, requesting the
response and stating the date by which it is due; the team Chair will receive a copy of the
memorandum.
The institution’s response to the team report should be brief and forthright, addressed to
specific issues, such as a disagreement with perceptions and/or interpretations, but it
should avoid nitpicking over minutiae. Because the institutional response is considered a
further extension of the self-study evaluation process, it should involve the institution's
constituencies appropriate to the areas being discussed. If the institution finds no major
disagreement with the overall report, the response needs to state only that the institution
accepts the report as written.
The response should be in the form of a letter, addressed to the Commission on Higher
Education, in care of the executive director. The original and 50 copies of the response
should be mailed to the Evaluation Services Coordinator, Middle States Commission on
Higher Education, 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104–2680.
The Commission will not act on the evaluation team report until the institution’s formal
response is received.
The Chair’s Brief
Immediately following completion of the final draft of the evaluation report, the Chair
should prepare a Brief, which summarizes and interprets the evaluation report and speaks
directly and only to the Commission. Because the commissioners will read both the team
report and the institution’s response, repetition is not needed.
The Chair’s brief should be no more than two pages in length. It is a condensation of the
evaluation report and, therefore, cannot substantively alter the content or tone of the team
report. In particular, the Brief cannot introduce new information that is not included in
the team report to which the institution has responded.
The team recommendation for action must be explicit and worded in accord with the
range of Commission actions. If a request for follow-up is included, the reasons must be
given. The request for a progress letter, monitoring report and/or visit, should specify the
date by which it is due, in keeping with the Commission’s calendar (usually either
October 1, December 1, or April 1).
39
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Fifty copies of the brief should be sent to the Commission office, immediately following
completion of the final team report. The brief is needed well in advance of the subsequent
committee and Commission meetings.
Template for the Chair’s Brief
This template for the Chair’s Brief, intended for use by all Chairs, regardless of the
self-study model, draws heavily from specific sections of the full team report.
The front page of the brief, at the top, must be marked “CONFIDENTIAL” and bear the
name of the institution visited, the dates of the visit, and the Chair’s name. The following
sample heading should be used:
CONFIDENTIAL
Chair’s Brief to the Commission on Higher Education
Institution Evaluated:
Dates of Evaluation:
Team Chair:
I. Context and Nature of the Visit
(same as Section I of the team report, in narrative or bulleted format)
II. Affirmation of Continued Compliance with Eligibility Requirements
(same as Section II of the team report)
III. Summary of Compliance with Accreditation Status
Based on review of the self-study, other institutional documents, and interviews with
faculty, staff, students, and others, the team affirms that the institution meets all
accreditation standards.
(Or alternatively, identify any standards for which the team has concluded that the
institution is not in compliance.)
IV. Summary of Significant Accomplishments, Significant Progress, or
Exemplary/Innovative Practices
(drawn from Section IV of the team report)
V. Summary Recommendations and Requirements
(drawn from Section V of the team report)
VI. Team Recommendation for Commission Action
(The recommended action must be explicit and worded in accord with the policy
“Range of Commission Actions on Accreditation.” If a request for a progress letter,
monitoring report, and/or visit is included, the specific issues must be identified.
When the team report contains multiple recommendations, teams should consider
grouping related recommendations together when identifying the specific items to be
addressed within progress letters or monitoring reports. The standard due dates for
such reports are October 1, December 1, or April 1.)
40
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
The Chair should not await the institution’s formal response before preparing his or
her brief to the Commission. At the time the Chair discusses the brief and report with
the Committee on Evaluation Reports, the team’s recommendation for Commission
action may be modified, based on consideration of the institutional response.
Committee on Evaluation Reports
Team Chairs, along with members of the Commission, comprise an ad hoc Committee on
Evaluation Reports, and Commission staff members also are present at these meetings as
observers and resources. Chairs may be asked on occasion to serve as “first readers” for
other reports at these meetings, a process that will be explained in the agenda prepared
for a particular day. Participants are expected to attend the committee meeting for the
entire day.
The Committee usually considers six to eight reports on a given day and makes
recommendations on which the full Commission will act at its next meeting. If there is no
major difference between the recommendation of the evaluation team and the
recommendation of the Committee on Evaluation Reports, the Committee will propose
that the institution be considered on the Commission’s consent agenda. If there are major
differences, the matter is placed on the Commission's discussion agenda.
The responsibilities of the Chair are fully discharged once the brief and the report have
been presented to the Committee on Evaluation Reports. Thereafter, questions about any
part of the evaluation process should be directed to the Commission office. Any inquiries
from the press, other agencies, or individuals should be directed to the executive director
of the Commission.
Commission Actions
The Commission will consider an institution’s accreditation status at its next regular
meeting, after all of the required documentation has been received at the Commission
office. When the Commission meets to make formal accreditation decisions, it reviews
the relevant material and recommendations from both the team and the Committee before
taking final action based on the policy statement, “Range of Commission Actions on
Accreditation.” In the event of a negative action, an institution may elect to appeal under
the Commission’s published guidelines.
Within 30 days after the Commission meets, staff notifies the institution, the team, the
U.S. Department of Education, the appropriate state agencies, other regional and national
accrediting organizations, the American Council on Education (ACE), and The Council
for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) of the Commission action.
Staff also prepares an updated “Statement of Accreditation Status” (SAS), which serves
as the Commission’s official public statement of an institution’s current status and recent
accreditation history. When the letter conveying the Commission's accreditation actions
is sent, a draft of the SAS also is provided to the institution for approval or proposed
modifications, with a request for response by a given date. If no response is received by
that date, the Commission assumes that the SAS meets the approval of the institution, and
the draft becomes the final document. The SAS then will be released to members of the
public upon request and will be posted on the Commission’s website.
As soon as the institution receives notification of the Commission’s action, the institution
should distribute the evaluation team report and related Commission action widely on
campus.
41
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Reporting Deadlines
Following is a summary of the various deadlines for reporting within the evaluation
process:
Event
Deadlines
Chair’s draft report to institution
Within two weeks of visit conclusion
Institution returns corrected draft to
the team Chair
Within 10 days of receipt of the draft report
Chair sends final report to institution
to be reproduced and to the Commission
Within seven days of receipt of (corrected) draft,
no less than one month from the date of the
meeting of the Committee on Evaluation Reports
Chair sends brief to the Commission
Immediately after the final report is completed
Formal institutional response to the
team evaluation report
The Commission office will have notified the
institution of the date for the response. This
deadline should be strictly adhered to.
[If the proceeding schedule cannot be met, the Commission will postpone consideration of the
institution’s status until its next regular meeting.]
Institution’s response to proposed
“Statement of Accreditation Status”
One month after the statement is mailed to the
institution
Institution distributes the team evaluation
report and the Commission action
widely on campus
Immediately upon notification of the Commission
action
Use and Distribution of the Evaluation Team Report
Every Middle States evaluation report is produced by an ad hoc team, and the purpose of
the team is to validate the institution’s self-study, to assess compliance with accreditation
standards, and to make recommendations to the institution on ways in which it can
improve its effectiveness. Team members rely upon their own knowledge and
observation of academic excellence, derived from their direct experience. An evaluation
team report is advisory and more the basis for further thought than the statement of
a final conclusion.
How to Use a Middle States Evaluation Team Report
An institution should be governed by two principles in using an evaluation report:
(1) the report should be studied open-mindedly and seriously by appropriate
constituencies, because it is the thoughtful product of sensitive and disinterested
professionals;
(2) the institution should reserve the full right and obligation to accept or reject the
team’s findings and recommendations as its own judgment dictates, developing clearly its
rationale for whatever course it follows.
42
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Distribution of Evaluation Team Reports
In accordance with the Commission’s policy on “Collegiality and Public Communication
in the Accreditation Process,” the institution is required to make the report readily
available or to distribute it as widely as possible on campus, because the report is
addressed to an institution’s entire constituency—administration, trustees, faculty,
students, and staff.
When distributing the report, however, the institution should indicate that the report does
not constitute a summary of the entire evaluation process; it is only the report of the team
that visited the institution. Because the Commission’s review processes sometimes result
in an accrediting action other than the one recommended by the team, misunderstandings
may occur if it has not been made clear that the report is only one piece of a much larger
whole which includes the institutional self-study, the site visit, the Commission’s
committee review, and deliberations of the full Commission.
Aside from its internal constituencies, the institution is free to distribute copies of the
report to others at its discretion. Should an institution use the report in such manner as to
create a misleading impression, such as using selected excerpts, the Commission reserves
the right to release the full report and to make appropriate statements to the public.
Excerpts, when used, should be verbatim or reasonable paraphrases and must accurately
reflect the entire report in its balance of strengths and team concerns.
As part of the accrediting process, confidential copies of the evaluation team report are
distributed to the members of the evaluation team (not Commission-assigned evaluation
team associates) and to commissioners. The Commission does not share evaluation team
reports with government or public or private agencies or individuals unless explicitly
permitted in writing by the institution to do so.
Miscellaneous
Letters of Appreciation
Following the evaluation visit, a letter by the Chair to each team member’s president, or
to the board Chair if the team member is a president, is an appreciated courtesy.
Commendation is in order, if indeed the contribution was outstanding.
Evaluation Costs Charged to the Institution
In addition to the standard evaluation fee, the Commission will send an invoice to the
institution for the following specific evaluation costs: (1) The Chair’s honorarium;
(2) An honorarium to each team member appointed by the Commission, payable when
notification is received that each has completed the assignment (via team evaluations);
and (3) Reimbursement for actual travel costs for the Chair and MSCHE team members,
payable upon receipt of expense vouchers and receipts. In anticipation of these expenses,
the Commission invoices each institution for a deposit against evaluation costs at least
six weeks prior to the team visit. Additional information concerning specific fees and
costs associated with evaluation visits can be found in the Commission’s “Schedule of
Dues and Fees,” which is available as a publication on the Commission’s website.
43
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
The institution also bears the expenses for meals and lodging. The Chair and the host
institution must make every effort to keep costs within reason. The institution normally
pays for all meals and room charges directly, unless it has made other arrangements with
the Commission. Under no circumstances are expenses to be reported directly to the
institution, nor should team members accept any form of direct reimbursement from the
institution.
Emergencies
If emergencies arise at any time during the process, the Chair and/or the president (or the
president’s designee) should telephone a Commission staff member at once.
Commission office phone: (267) 284–5000
Fax number: (215) 662–5501
Commission Website
Selected publications and other resources for institutions, evaluators, and Chairs can be
found at the Commission’s website: www.msache.org.
j:\Conducting&Hosting
44
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Appendix 1
Guidelines for Institutions Developing
A Documentation Roadmap for
The Selected Topics Model
T
he selected topics model allows an already accredited institution to devote
concentrated attention to selected issues, without having to provide
comprehensive analysis of institutional programs and services and without
having to address all accreditation standards within the self-study report. The
defining characteristic of this self-study model is that the review of compliance with
those accreditation standards not addressed within the selected topics occurs in a manner
that distinguishes and separates it from the evaluation team visit focused on the selected
topics. This part of the review is based on existing documentation and does not require
significant additional analysis or explanation.
The institution, in consultation with Commission staff and the team chair, selects one
of two timing options for the review of documentation relative to standards not
encompassed by the selected topics self-study: Option 1, Review during the Chair’s
Preliminary Visit, or Option 2, Review Concurrent with the Full Team Visit. For both
options, the institution assembles, or otherwise makes accessible on site, the existing
documentation relative to those accreditation standards that the selected topics self-study
does not address. In addition, the institution provides to the Commission and to those
conducting the review a brief “roadmap” that connects specific documents to particular
accreditation standards.
Option 1: Review during the Chair’s Preliminary Visit
The standard preliminary visit of the team chair includes meetings with institutional
representatives to discuss the draft self-study and plans for the team visit. In selected
topics Option 1, the team chair and one (or in complex instances, two) designated
generalist evaluator(s), using the roadmap provided by the institution, also review the
assembled documentation to verify institutional compliance with those standards that are
not substantively reflected in the self-study. This option may necessitate extending the
length of the chair’s preliminary visit.
The team chair and the designated generalist evaluator prepare a brief written report,
affirming and certifying that the institution meets accreditation standards not being
addressed within the selected topics model or noting any areas where compliance is in
question. This summary report identifies any standards for which the institution will need
to provide further or updated information at the time of the team visit. Otherwise, the
report simply affirms that the documentation demonstrates that the institution meets the
specified accreditation standards. This summary report, which notes any standards for
which compliance is in question but does not include recommendations for improvement,
is shared with the institution and with members of the evaluation team. If the summary
report includes a request for additional information, the institution provides this
information at the time of the full team visit. Any written response to the summary report
is incorporated into the institution’s formal response to the final evaluation team report.
45
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
The team chair (and the designated generalist evaluator, if the chair and Commission
staff determine it to be appropriate) participates in the full evaluation team visit. If
deemed necessary, the chair or generalist evaluator verifies that the institution continues
to meet standards covered in the summary report and reviews any further or updated
information the institution has been requested to provide in response to the preliminary
summary report.
The size and profile of the evaluation team is tailored to the selected topics; the team visit
focuses exclusively on the selected topics of the institution’s self-study and the related
accreditation standards. The findings and conclusions of the early certification report
(prepared by the team chair and generalist evaluator) are provided to the team,
incorporated into the final team report, and appended to the final team report.
Option 2: Review Concurrent with the Full Team Visit
The preliminary visit of the team chair is conducted in the usual manner, with a focus on
acquiring familiarity with the institution through meetings with institutional
representatives and discussions of the draft self-study and plans for the team visit.
Concurrent with the full team visit, the team chair and one (or in complex instances, two)
designated generalist evaluator(s), using the roadmap provided by the institution, review
the assembled documentation to verify institutional compliance with those standards that
are not substantively reflected in the self-study. If needed to verify compliance,
additional information may be requested during the visit.
The team chair and the generalist evaluator prepare a brief written report, affirming and
certifying that the institution meets accreditation standards not being addressed within the
selected topics model or noting any areas where compliance is in question. Otherwise,
the report simply affirms that there is sufficient documentation to conclude that the
institution meets the specified accreditation standards. This summary report, which does
not include recommendations for improvement, is shared with the institution and with
members of the evaluation team.
The size and profile of the evaluation team is tailored to the selected topics; the full team
visit focuses exclusively on the selected topics of the institution’s self-study and the
related accreditation standards. The findings and conclusions of the report prepared by
the team chair and generalist evaluator are incorporated into the team report, and the
summary report is appended to the final team report.
Purposes of the Documentation Roadmap
The roadmap prepared by the institution should guide and facilitate the team
chair/designated evaluator’s review of documentation by:
q identifying the alignment between individual accreditation standards and specific
documents, including the highlighting of particularly relevant sections of those
documents if they are lengthy; and
q identifying (through a brief annotation) what the institution believes each
document demonstrates relative to that accreditation standard and its fundamental
elements (why the institution has selected that document).
46
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
When and How is the Documentation Roadmap Submitted?
1. Prior to the Self-study Design
As noted on pp. 10 and 57 in Designs for Excellence, institutions considering the selected
topics approach must submit to the Commission staff liaison approximately 24 months
prior to the evaluation team visit a preliminary proposal (separate from the full
self-study design) identifying: the proposed selected topic(s); why the topic(s) are
important to the institution; which accreditation standards would be substantively
addressed by the proposed self-study; and a description of what type of evidence and
documentation the institution has available to substantiate compliance with those
standards not addressed by the proposed self-study. Depending on the selected topic(s),
it may be that some standards will be addressed partially by the self-study and partially
through documentation separate from the self-study.
Review of the preliminary proposal allows Commission staff to determine whether the
proposal is acceptable and therefore the institution should proceed to develop the full
self-study design.
2. Within the Self-study Design
The self-study design, which is submitted to the Commission staff liaison approximately
18 months prior to the evaluation team visit, should include a substantively complete
working draft of the Documentation Roadmap [Forms A, B (if relevant), and C]. Staff
feedback may assist the institution in strengthening or refining the roadmap at this point.
3. When the Team Chair is Confirmed
When the institution is notified that the team chair for the evaluation visit has been
confirmed, the institution is asked to send the team chair the self-study design and other
institutional information. The chair receives the Documentation Roadmap [Forms A, B
(if relevant), and C] either as part of the self-study design or as a separate, updated
Documentation Roadmap, if the institution has made changes since completion of the
self-study design.
4. Prior to the On-site Document Review (optional)
If further updates to the Documentation Roadmap have been made, the institution should
send the revised roadmap to the team chair, designated generalist evaluator(s), and the
Commission staff liaison two weeks prior to the on-site document review.
Purpose and Suggested Strategy for the Document Review
The purpose of the document review conducted by the team chair and designated
generalist evaluator(s) is to determine, based on existing documents selected by the
institution, whether the institution meets those accreditation standards that are not
addressed or are only partially addressed within the self-study.
In the conduct of the document review, the team chair and designated generalist
evaluator(s) should:
47
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Ø be thoroughly familiar with the self-study approach utilized by the institution and
with the roadmap (both overview and detail sections) provided by the institution;
Ø agree on how responsibility for the document review will be shared, including
determination of whether there will be separate or joint responsibility for
individual standards;
Ø be thoroughly familiar with those accreditation standards and fundamental
elements pertinent to the documents under review;
Ø review the documents themselves, being guided by the brief annotations provided
in the roadmap detail;
Ø during the review of documents, make brief notes that will facilitate preparation
of the Summary Certification Report.
Selected Topics Self-Study:
Formats for Use by Institutions and Team Chairs/Evaluators
The attached forms provide a uniform format to be used by institutions engaged in a
selected topics self-study.
q Form A: Documentation Roadmap & Self-Study Overview
q Form B: Documentation Roadmap for Standards Partially Addressed within the
Self-Study
(Note: This form may or may not be applicable to your self-study.)
q Form C: Documentation Roadmap for Standards Not Addressed within the
Self-Study
48
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Form A:
Selected Topics Self-Study
Documentation Roadmap
And Self-Study Overview
Institution Name: _______________________________________________________
The selected topic(s) of our self-study:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Instructions: Check one column for each accreditation standard.
The Standards
Substantively
Addressed
within
Self-Study
Partially
Addressed*
within
Self-Study
Not
Addressed**
1. Mission, Goals, and Objectives
2. Planning, Resource Allocation, and
Institutional Renewal
3. Institutional Resources
4. Leadership and Governance
5. Administration
6. Integrity
7. Institutional Assessment
8. Student Admissions
9. Student Support Services
10. Faculty
11. Educational Offerings
12. General Education
13. Related Educational Activities
14. Assessment of Student Learning
* complete Form B for these standards
** complete Form C for these standards
49
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Form B:
Selected Topics Self-Study
Documentation Roadmap for Standards
Partially Addressed within the Self-Study
Institution Name: _______________________________________________________
The selected topic(s) of our self-study:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Standard
(# and Name)
Documents
Provided
(Identify documents
and relevant sections
and/or pages.)
Brief Annotation
(Describe what
each document
demonstrates,
relative to the
standard and its
fundamental
elements.)
Self-Study Chapters
(Identify the related
chapters in the
Self-Study Report.)
Example:
A comprehensive institution addressing the selected topic of “Undergraduate Education”
within its self-study might present the following information:
Standard
Documents
Provided
Ø Student Learning
Assessment Plan,
pp. 24-27
#11. Educational
Offerings
Ø Licensure Exam
Results
Ø Placement Program
Results
50
Brief Annotation
Demonstrates
program outcomes
for graduate
programs
Self-Study Chapters
Chapter 2
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Form C:
Selected Topics Self-Study
Documentation Roadmap for Standards
Not Addressed within the Self-Study
Institution Name: _______________________________________________________
The selected topic(s) of our self-study:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Standard
(# and Name)
Documents Provided
(Identify documents and
relevant sections and/or
pages.)
Brief Annotation
(Describe what
each document demonstrates,
relative to the standard and its
fundamental elements.)
Example:
An institution not addressing Standards 3 and 9 within the Selected Topics Self-Study
might present the following information:
Standard
Documents Provided
Ø Budget Instructions
Demonstrates annual budget
process
Ø 2002 Facilities Master Plan,
especially pp. 30-35
The institution has a facilities
plan and the update section
shows how the plan has been
implemented.
Ø Catalog, pp. 34-36
Appropriate student
advisement processes
#3. Institutional Resources
#9. Student Support Services
Brief Annotation
Ø Institutional Assessment Plan,
pp. 12-15
Summary of student surveys
and other assessment
measures demonstrates that
the institution engages in
ongoing assessment of
student support services.
51
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Appendix 2
Guidelines for Generalist Evaluators
Conducting a Document Review for
The Selected Topics Model
T
he selected topics model allows an already accredited institution to devote
concentrated attention to selected issues, without having to provide
comprehensive analysis of institutional programs and services and without
having to address all accreditation standards within the self-study report. The
defining characteristic of this self-study model is that the review of compliance with
those accreditation standards not addressed within the selected topics occurs in a manner
that distinguishes and separates it from the evaluation team visit focused on the selected
topics. This part of the review is based on existing documentation and does not require
significant additional analysis or explanation.
The institution, in consultation with Commission staff and the team chair, selects one of
two timing options for the review of documentation relative to standards not
encompassed by the selected topics self-study. In Option 1, which most institutions
prefer, the review occurs concurrent with the team chair’s preliminary visit. In Option 2,
the review occurs concurrent with the full team visit. For both options, the institution
assembles, or otherwise makes accessible on site, existing documentation relative to
those accreditation standards that the selected topics self-study either does not address at
all or addresses only partially. In addition, the institution provides to the Commission and
to those conducting the review a brief “roadmap” that connects specific documents to
particular accreditation standards.
Working under the general guidance of the team chair and/or the Commission staff
liaison, one or two generalist evaluators, using the roadmap provided by the institution,
review the assembled documentation to verify institutional compliance with those
standards that are not substantively reflected in the self-study. In some instances the work
of the generalist evaluators under timing option 1 may begin before or continue beyond
the chair’s preliminary visit.
The designated generalist evaluator(s) and/or the team chair prepare a brief written
report, affirming and certifying that the institution meets accreditation standards not
being addressed within the selected topics model or noting any areas where compliance is
in question. This summary report identifies any standards for which the institution will
need to provide further or updated information at the time of the team visit. Otherwise,
the report simply affirms that the documentation demonstrates that the institution meets
the specified accreditation standards. This summary report, which notes any standards for
which compliance is in question but does not include recommendations for improvement,
is shared with the institution and with members of the evaluation team. If the summary
report includes a request for additional information, the institution provides this
information at the time of the full team visit. Any written response to the summary report
is incorporated into the institution’s formal response to the final evaluation team report.
52
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
The size and profile of the evaluation team is tailored to the selected topics; the team visit
focuses exclusively on the selected topics of the institution’s self-study and the related
accreditation standards. The early certification report (prepared by the generalist
evaluator(s) and/or team chair) is provided to the team, findings are incorporated into the
final team report, and the generalist evaluators’ report is appended to the final team
report.
Purposes of the Roadmap
The documentation roadmap begins by identifying for each of the 14 accreditation
standards, whether the standard is: (1) substantively addressed within the self-study,
(2) partially addressed within the self-study, or (3) not addressed within the self-study.
The remainder of the roadmap lists particular documents for those standards partially
addressed or not addressed within the self-study and guides the reviewers through brief
annotations for each cited document.
The roadmap prepared by the institution should facilitate the designated generalist
evaluator’s review of documentation by:
q identifying the alignment between individual accreditation standards and specific
documents, including the highlighting of particularly relevant sections of those
documents if they are lengthy; and
q identifying (through a brief annotation) what the institution believes each
document demonstrates relative to that accreditation standard and its fundamental
elements (why the institution has selected that document).
When is the Documentation Roadmap Provided?
Although draft versions of the documentation roadmap are reviewed by Commission
staff members early in the self-study process, the final version is sent by the institution to
the designated generalist evaluators, the team chair, and the Commission staff liaison at
least three weeks prior to the scheduled document review.
Suggested Strategy for the Document Review
The purpose of the document review conducted by the designated generalist evaluator(s)
and/or team chair is to determine, based on existing documents selected by the
institution, whether the institution meets those accreditation standards that are not
addressed or that are only partially addressed within the self-study.
In conducting the document review, the generalist evaluator(s), under the general
guidance of the team chair and the Commission staff liaison, are expected to:
Ø be thoroughly familiar with the self-study approach utilized by the institution and
with the roadmap (both overview and detail sections) provided by the institution;
Ø agree on how responsibility for the document review will be shared, including
determination of whether there will be separate or joint responsibility for
individual standards;
Ø be thoroughly familiar with those accreditation standards and fundamental
elements pertinent to the documents under review;
Ø review the documents themselves, being guided by the brief annotations provided
in the roadmap detail; and
53
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Ø make brief notes during the review of documents to facilitate preparation of a
Summary Certification Report, following the format provided below in Form D.
Reviewers might proceed as follows:
1. Review the roadmap in order to answer these questions:
ü What is or are the selected topic(s)?
ü Which accreditation standards are not addressed within the self-study and are
therefore the primary focus of the roadmap and this documentation review?
ü Which accreditation standards, if any, are partially addressed within the
self-study and partially addressed by the documentation review? How does the
selected topic determine the aspects or elements of those standards that are
covered in the self-study vs. those addressed by the assembled documentation?
(For example, a comprehensive university that focused on undergraduate
education in its self-study would most likely provide some roadmap
documentation on graduate education relative to such standards as student
admissions, student support services, and the assessment of student learning.)
2. Following the roadmap, proceed standard by standard through the documents noted
therein. Review and have at hand the relevant accreditation standard, including
fundamental elements. Use the standard and fundamental elements as a frame of
reference and inquiry in reviewing the documents the institution has identified as relevant
to that standard. Be guided by the direction provided in the annotation for each
document.
3. Consult with institutional representatives if there are substantive questions about the
documents or if critically important documents seem not to be included.
4. Keep notes relative to the review of each standard and the institution’s related
documentation.
5. Make a preliminary determination as to whether the institution meets the standard, in
light of the documentation provided. Remember that there need not be specific,
separate evidence for each fundamental element. However, the assembled
documentation should support your affirming that overall the fundamental
elements—which, taken together, comprise the standard—are evident and that the
institution meets the standard.
6. After completing the document review, revisit all preliminary determinations and
make any changes that are warranted based on further reflection and consideration.
7. Draft the summary certification report, using notes as a source for brief summary
comments or details.
8. Complete the report with input from the second generalist evaluator (if present) and
the team chair (if participating in the document review).
9. If the report identifies standards for which compliance cannot be affirmed OR if the
report suggests additional documentation that should be provided at the time of the full
team visit, inform the team chair as soon as possible, prior to finalizing the summary
certification report. In such instances, the team chair should discuss the certification
report with the institution’s president at the earliest opportunity.
10. Within two weeks of the document review, provide a copy of the final report to the
Commission staff liaison assigned to the institution. (The staff liaison will forward the
report to the institution, the team chair, and evaluation team members.)
54
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Form D:
Selected Topics Self-Study Format for
Generalist Evaluators or Team Chairs
Summary Certification Report
Institution Name: _______________________________________________________
Team Chair: ___________________________________________________________
Generalist Evaluator(s): __________________________________________________
Date of Documentation Review: _____________________________
(Please append to this report a list of any additional documents not cited in the roadmap that
were included as part of this review.)
For Standards Not Addressed within the Selected Topics Self-Study
Standard (# and name):
YES, the documentation demonstrates compliance with this standard.
or
NO, the documentation does not demonstrate compliance or is incomplete.
Brief Summary Comments, Details, or Explanation:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
If any additional documentation should be provided at the time of the full team
visit, please specify:
________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
For Standards Partially Addressed within the Selected Topics Self-Study
Standard (# and name):
YES, the documentation demonstrates compliance with this standard relative to
programs/services/functions not addressed within the Selected Topics Self-Study.
or
NO, the documentation does not demonstrate such compliance or is incomplete.
Brief Summary Comments, Details, or Explanation:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
If any additional documentation should be provided at the time of the full team
visit, please specify:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
55
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Appendix 3
Sample Cover Page of the Team Report
Report to the
Faculty, Administration, Trustees, Students
of
HILLTOP COLLEGE
Punxsutawney, PA 12345
by
An Evaluation Team representing the
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
Prepared after study of the institution’s self-study report
and a visit to the campus on
(dates)
The Members of the Team:
(Name all team members and the Chair, their titles, and full addresses)
Working with the Team:
(Name the state education department representatives, any specialized agency
representatives, and others specifically identified as not members of the team)
This report represents the views of the evaluation team as interpreted by the Chair;
it goes directly to the institution before being considered by the Commission. It is a
confidential document prepared as an educational service for the benefit of the
institution. All comments in the report are made in good faith, in an effort to assist
(name of the institution). This report is based solely on an educational evaluation of
the institution and of the manner in which it appears to be carrying out its
educational objectives.
56
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Appendix 4
Sample Second Page of the Team Report
AT THE TIME OF THE VISIT
President/CEO:
(Name)
Chief Academic Officer:
(Name and Title)
Chair of the Board of Trustees:
(Name, Title, and Full Address)
57
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Appendix 5
Certification of Eligibility for
Reaffirmation, Initial Accreditation,
or Candidacy Status
A
n institution seeking Reaffirmation of Accreditation, Initial Accreditation, or
Candidacy status must demonstrate that it meets or continues to meet established
eligibility requirements as outlined in the pages that follow.
Reaffirmation
Eligibility requirements one through seven are relevant for all institutions seeking
Reaffirmation. (Because eligibility requirements eight through twenty-two also are
included more specifically within the standards for accreditation, accredited institutions
are not required to demonstrate separately that they meet these eligibility requirements.)
These institutions are expected to use the certification statement that follows and
should include it as part of the self-study report (e.g., as an appendix item). If it is
not possible to certify compliance with all relevant eligibility requirements, the
institution must attach specific details in a separate memorandum.
Initial Accreditation
Eligibility requirements one through twenty-two are relevant for institutions seeking
Initial Accreditation. These institutions are expected to use the certification statement
that follows and should include it as part of the self-study report (e.g., as an
appendix item). If it is not possible to certify compliance with all relevant eligibility
requirements, the institution must attach specific details in a separate
memorandum.
Candidacy
Eligibility requirements one through twenty-two are relevant for institutions seeking
Candidacy status, but this cannot be achieved through a certification of compliance.
During Phase 1 of the Application for Candidacy process, institutions seeking Candidacy
must provide documentation that the institution meets all eligibility requirements.
During the Phase 2 Applicant Assessment Visit, the team will verify that the applicant
institution complies with all eligibility requirements.
58
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
Eligibility Certification Statement
_____________________________________________________________ is seeking:
(Name of Institution)
(Check one)
q Reaffirmation of Accreditation
q Initial Accreditation
The undersigned hereby certify that the institution meets all established eligibility
requirements of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.
q If applicable, exceptions are noted in the attached memorandum.
_______________________________________
(Chief Executive Officer)
_______________________________________
(Chair, Board of Trustees or Directors)
_________________
(Date)
_________________
(Date)
59
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Eligibility Requirements
For All Institutions
1. The institution is authorized to operate as an educational institution and award
postsecondary degrees by an appropriate governmental organization within the Middle
States region and other agencies as required by each of the jurisdictions or regions in
which it operates. Based on review of individual institutional requests, the Commission
may determine that degree-granting authority from a U.S. or foreign governmental or
other agency outside the Middle States region is an acceptable alternative.
2. The institution’s mission is clearly defined and adopted by its governing board,
consistent with its legal authorization, and is appropriate to a degree granting institution
of higher education.
3. Educational programs within the institution award credit towards postsecondary
degrees equivalent to at least one academic year in length.
4. The governing body is able to assure that the institution adheres to the eligibility
requirements, describes itself in identical terms to all accrediting agencies, can be
reasonably expected to adhere to accreditation standards and policies, communicates any
changes in its accredited status, and that it will make freely available to the Commission
accurate, fair, and complete information on all aspects of the institution and its
operations.
5. The institution publishes in its catalog or other appropriate places accurate and current
information that describes its purposes and objectives, admission requirements and
procedures, academic calendars, rules and regulations directly affecting students,
programs and courses, degrees offered and the degree requirements, costs and refund
policies, grievance procedures, academic credentials of faculty and administrators, and
other items relative to attending the institution and withdrawing from it.
6. The institution devotes a significant portion of its income to the support of its
educational purposes and programs.
7. The institution complies with the applicable interregional policies, such as “Separately
Accreditable Institutions” and “Evaluation of Institutions Operating Interregionally.”
For Institutions Seeking Initial Accreditation
8. For those seeking candidacy: The institution is operational with students actively
pursuing its degree programs. For those seeking initial accreditation: The institution has
graduated students or can demonstrate that the lack of such graduates does not
compromise its ability to demonstrate appropriate learning outcomes.
9. The institution provides evidence of basic planning that integrates plans for academic,
personnel, information, learning resources, and financial development.
10. The institution documents a founding base, financial resources, and plans for
financial development adequate to support its mission and educational programs and to
assure financial stability. The institution regularly undergoes and makes available an
external audit by a certified public accountant or an audit by an appropriate public audit
agency.
60
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
11. The institution maintains physical facilities for administration, faculty, students, and
programs and services that are appropriate for the institution’s mission and educational
programs offered.
12. The institution has a functioning governing body responsible for the quality and
integrity of the institution and for ensuring that the institution’s mission is being carried
out. Its membership is sufficient in size and composition to fulfill all governing body
responsibilities. The governing body is an independent policy-making body, capable of
reflecting constituent and public interest within governance activities and decisions,
pursuant to Characteristics of Excellence. There is operational a conflict of interest
policy for the governing body (and fiduciary body members, if such a body exists),
which addresses matters such as remuneration, contractual relationships, employment,
family, and financial or other interests that could pose conflicts of interest, and that
assures that those interests are disclosed and that they do not interfere with the
impartiality of governing body members or outweigh the greater duty to secure and
ensure the academic and fiscal integrity of the institution.
13. The institution has a chief executive officer who is appointed by the governing board,
whose primary responsibility is to the institution, and who does not serve as the chair of
the institution’s governing body.
14. The institution has qualified administration and staff and provides the administrative
services necessary to support its mission and purpose.
15. The institution has adopted and adheres to admission policies consistent with its
mission that specify the qualifications of students appropriate for its programs.
16. The institution provides student services and development programs consistent with
student characteristics and its institutional mission.
17. The institution provides sufficient learning and information resources and services to
support the nature, scope, and level of the programs offered.
18. The institution’s faculty is sufficient in number, background, and experience to
support the programs offered and includes a core of faculty with sufficient responsibility
to the institution to assure the continuity and coherence of the institution’s programs. The
institution provides a clear statement of faculty responsibilities including development
and review of curriculum as well as assessment of learning.
19. The degree programs are congruent with the institution’s mission; they have clearly
defined and published objectives; they are based on recognized field(s) of study; they are
of sufficient content and length; they are conducted at levels of quality and rigor
appropriate to the degrees offered.
20. The institution’s academic programs include a substantial general education
component, either as a prerequisite or as clearly defined elements, designed to ensure
breadth of knowledge and promote intellectual inquiry.
21. The institution engages in systematic evaluation of student achievement.
22. The institution engages in evaluating systematically how well and in what ways it is
accomplishing its purposes, including assessment of student learning and documentation
of institutional effectiveness.
61
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Appendix 6
How to Conduct an Interview During a Team Visit
Preparation:
Interviews test and illuminate the self-study. Good interviews start with thorough
knowledge of the self-study and institutional materials. The Chair makes interview
assignments according to the expertise of the team, but team members also identify
potential interviews, and the final schedule reflects dialogue between team Chair and
members about assignments.
Develop Interview Objectives and Questions:
For each interview, the team member should know the objectives of the interview,
develop clear questions, and be sure those questions relate to the self-study and
accreditation criteria.
Seek Dialogue, NOT Cross-Examination:
Questions should be designed to evoke analysis and dialogue. This is not
cross-examination or interrogation, and questions that make the interviewee feel put on
the spot are generally not helpful.
Set the Context and Explain the Objectives:
At the outset of the interview, be sure to get the names and positions of everyone in the
room. Greet the individual or group in a friendly way, and remind all of the purpose of
accreditation. Frame the objectives of the interview and general topics under review in
this session. Set the time limit as well.
Avoid Monologue and Prescription:
Team members must not use interview times to lecture the interviewee, monologue about
your opinions, or offer prescriptions about what the institution should do. You are there
to learn, test assertions constructively and push analysis by institutional participants.
Take Careful Notes:
Interviews form an important part of the background for the team report, and often a
statement in an interview can shape the team’s understanding of some dimension of the
self-study. Notes taken during the interview facilitate accuracy and completeness.
Source: Presentation by Dr. Patricia A. McGuire, President, Trinity College, at the Middle
States Training for New Chairs and Evaluators on September 18, 2003, “Commission’s
Expectations for Chairs and Evaluators.” Reprinted with permission.
62
Conducting & Hosting an Evaluation Visit
Appendix 7
Middle States Commission
on Higher Education
Mission Statement
The Middle States Commission on Higher Education is a voluntary, non-governmental,
peer-based membership association dedicated to educational excellence and improvement
through peer evaluation and accreditation. As a recognized leader in promoting and
ensuring quality assurance and improvement in higher education, the Commission
defines, maintains, and promotes educational excellence and responds creatively to a
diverse, dynamic, global higher education community that is continually evolving.
The Commission supports its members in their quest for excellence and provides
assurance to the general public that accredited member institutions meet its standards.
The Commission achieves its purposes through assessment, peer evaluation, consultation,
information gathering and sharing, cooperation, and appropriate educational activities.
The Commission is committed to the principles of cooperation, flexibility, openness, and
responsiveness to the needs of society and the higher education community.
63
Index
A
accreditation
action
See Commission decision
process v
C
Campus Interviews
See team visit
campuses 4
additional locations 6
branch campuses 4, 6, 22
off-campus sites 4, 22
candidate institution 7
preliminary visit 7
Certification of Eligibility for Reaffirmation, Initial Accreditation, or Candidacy Status
Chair vi
accountability to the public 2
brief 29, 39
template for the Chair’s brief 40
Chair’s conferences 24
Chair’s responsibilities 20
checklist for team chairs 10
communications with team members 10
deadlines for reporting 42
distributing the team report 32
draft of the self-study 4
evaluation costs 43
evaluation of team members 31
final written report 28
draft of the team report 34
interview assignments 62
letters of appreciation 43
materials in advance 4
oral report 28, 30
preliminary visit
schedule and agenda 7
presentations of the team’s findings 28
strategy for the visit 20
team assignments 15
team conferences 25
team recommendation for accreditation action 29
58
travel 18
written brief 28
Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education v, 4, 21, 24, 30, 34, 36
checklist 10
checklist for evaluation team members 18
checklist for institutions 13
checklist for team Chairs 10
collaborative evaluation visit 6
Collegiality and Public Communication in the Accreditation Process 43
Commission
Commission actions 29, 41
Commission’s website 44
Committee on Evaluation Reports vi, 41
decision
dates for the team visit 3
interaction with institutions vi
mission statement 63
compliance
See federal requirements
See standards for accreditation
confidentiality 2
conflicts of interest 1
D
Designs for Excellence
4, 6, 16
E
cligibility certification statement 17
Certification of Eligibility for Reaffirmation, Initial Accreditation, or Candidacy Status
eligibility requirements 4, 12, 14, 17 - 18, 36 - 37
eligibility requirements 60
evaluation team associate 6
evaluator data forms 4
evaluator training workshop 31
evaluators
See team: evaluation team
expense voucher 10, 30
preliminary visit 10
58
F
federal requirements 36 - 37
follow-up
See team evaluation: recommendation
G
generalist evaluators 52
Guidelines for Generalist Evaluators Conducting a Document Review for The Selected Topics Model
52
H
housing
See team visit: travel and housing
I
institution 2
distributing the team report 32
reproduce and mail the final report
get-acquainted program 23
materials in advance to the Chair 4
periodic review report 29
responsibilities 2
statement 41
Statement of Accreditation Status 41
using an evaluation report 42
distributing the report 43
interviews 62
34
M
mission statement (Commission)
63
P
peer review
Commission decision v
peer review
v
preliminary visit 6
discussion topics 8
document 7
meetings with groups 8
selected topics self-study 6
tour of the campus 7
R
Range of Commission Actions on Accreditation
roadmap 45
roster of evaluation team members 4
41
S
self-study
purposes v
self-study design 4
self-study draft 4
self-study report vi
eligibility certification statement 18
Certification of Eligibility for Reaffirmation, Initial Accreditation, or Candidacy Status
type of self-study 3
58
collaborative self-study
16
comprehensive self-study 16
comprehensive with emphasis self-study 16
team report template 35
selected topics 3, 16
Chair’s preliminary visit 6
document review 7, 9, 24
generalist evaluator 9, 24
Guidelines for Institutions Developing A Documentation Roadmap for The Selected Topics Model
roadmap 24
team report template 37
self-study document
See self-study report
standards for accreditation
compliance with accreditation standards 36, 38
definition of accreditation 2
team report 32
state education agency 3, 23
study abroad programs 4
system office 3, 23
T
team
Chairing responsibilities 2
checklist for evaluation team members 18
completion of team member responsibilities 30
employment at institutions 2
evaluation costs 43
evaluation of the team Chair 31
evaluation of the team training workshop 31
evaluation team v
communications with team members 10
materials in advance to team members 15
team assignments 21, 23
team associate 6
team composition 5
first-time evaluators 23
team member preparation 14
self-study review 17
understanding the self-study 16
team roster 5
team size 3
training workshop 15
personal conduct 2
purpose of the team 42
team ethics 1
team evaluation of an institution 21
focusing the evaluation 21
generalist evaluators 52
individual team member reports 28
45
level of effort 22
recommendation for accreditation action 29
monitoring report 29
progress letter 29
strengths and weaknesses 21
team discussions 24
team report vi, 28
characteristics of the report 32
copy of the team report 30
cover page 35
sample cover page 56
sample second page 57
due date 34
format 35
institution’s response to the team report 34, 39
recommendations 29
requirements 29
suggestions 28
template
Chair’s brief 40
comprehensive or comprehensive with emphases self-studies
selected topics self-studies 37
using an evaluation report
distributing the report 43
team visit 1, 20
first working session 25
following the team visit 30
host’s get-acquainted program 23
housing reservations 3
how to conduct an interview during a team visit 62
initial team meeting 23
interviews 24
scheduling interviews 25
selected topics document review
24
team visit schedule 22
travel and housing 18
Travel Expense Guidelines 18
templates
See team report: template
U
university system office
See system office
V
voucher
See expense voucher
35