Middle States Commission on Higher Education

3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-2680 Phone: 267-284-5000 Fax: 215-662-5501 www.msche.org

Addendum to
Team Visits: Conducting and Hosting an Evaluation Visit Revised Definitions of Warning and Probation in Range of Commission Actions Policy and the Standardized Language Guidelines
Warning. The Commission acts to Warn an institution that its accreditation may be in jeopardy when the institution is not in compliance with one or more Commission standards and a follow-up report, called a monitoring report, is required to demonstrate that the institution has made appropriate improvements to bring itself into compliance. Warning indicates that the Commission believes that, although the institution is out of compliance, the institution has the capacity to make appropriate improvements within a reasonable period of time and the institution has the capacity to sustain itself in the long term. Probation. The Commission places an institution on Probation when, in the Commissions judgment, the institution is not in compliance with one or more Commission standards and that the non-compliance is sufficiently serious, extensive, or acute that it raises concern about one or more of the following: 1. the adequacy of the education provided by the institution; 2. the institutions capacity to make appropriate improvements in a timely fashion; or 3. the institutions capacity to sustain itself in the long term. Probation is often, but need not always be, preceded by an action of Warning or Postponement. If the Commission had previously postponed a decision or placed the institution on Warning, the Commission may place the institution on Probation if it determines that the institution has failed to address satisfactorily the Commissions concerns in the prior action of postponement or warning regarding compliance with Commission standards. This action is accompanied by a request for a monitoring report, and a special visit follows. Probation may, but need not always, precede an action of Show Cause.

November 15, 2007

Summary of Actions a Team May Take or Recommend to the Commission

Is the institution in compliance with the standards?
Then the team shares the following with the institution in the team report: And the team may, at its option, provide this to the institution:
1. Discuss significant accomplishments/ progress or exemplary/innovativepractices; 2. Offer suggestion(s) for institutional improvement and/or make recommendations 1. Discuss significant accomplishments, significant progress, or exemplary/innovative practices; 2. Offer suggestion(s) for institutional improvement 1. Discuss significant accomplishments, significant progress, or exemplary/innovative practices; 2. Offer suggestion(s) for institutional improvement 1. Discuss significant accomplishments, significant progress, or exemplary/innovative practices; 2. Offer suggestion(s) for institutional improvement 1. Discuss significant accomplishments, significant progress, or exemplary/innovative practices; 2. Offer suggestion(s) for institutional improvement 3. Make Recommendation(s) 1. Discuss significant accomplishments, significant progress, or exemplary/innovative practices; 2. Offer suggestion(s) for institutional improvement 3. Make Recommendation(s) To reaffirm accreditation and to request a progress letter, due by [date*], documenting... To reaffirm accreditation and request that the Periodic Review Report, due June 1 [Year], address [specific issues that need attention or emphasis]. To reaffirm accreditation

If the team's confidential answer is: The team must recommend that the Commission take this action:

And the team shares the following confidentially with the Commission and only in the Chair's confidential Brief: And the team may, at its option, recommend that the Commission take this action:

The team must provide this to the institution:

Yes

To commend the institution for progress to date and/or the quality of its self-study process and/or the quality of the self-study

Yes, the team is confident of the institution's continuing compliance, but the team wants the institution to focus its attention on improvements in certain areas over the next few years. Make Recommendation(s)

To commend the institution for progress to date and/or the quality of its self-study process and/or the quality of the self-study

Yes, but assurance is needed that the institution is carrying out activities planned or being implemented. Make Recommendation(s)

1. To request that the Periodic Review Report, due June 1 [Year], address [specific issues that need attention or emphasis]. 2. To commend the institution for progress to date and/or the quality of its self-study process and/or the quality of the self-study 1. To request that the Periodic Review Report, due June 1 [Year], address [specific issues that need attention or emphasis].

Yes, but the team has concerns about continued institutional compliance with one or more standards. Make Recommendation(s)

To reaffirm accreditation and to request a monitoring report(s), due by [date*], documenting...

2. A visit may/will follow submission of the monitoring report. (Note: This is optional, used if verification of institutional status and progress requires on-site review.) 3. To commend the institution for progress to date and/or the quality of its self-study process and/or the quality of the self-study

No, the institution is not in compliance with one or more standards. Make Requirement(s)

To warn the institution that its accreditiation may be in jeopardy and to request a monitoring report(s), due by [date*], documenting... A visit will follow submission o the monitoring report

To direct a prompt staff visit to discuss Commission expectations.

The team does not have sufficient information to determine if the institution is in compliance.

Identify Areas of Insufficient Information

To postpone a decision on accreditation, and to request a supplemental information report, due by [date*], documenting...

1. A visit may/will follow submission of the supplemental information report. (Note: This is optional, used if verification of institutional status and progress requires on-site review.) 2. To direct a prompt staff visit to discuss Commission expectations.

* Dates for progress letters and monitoring reports must be 6-24 months after the Commission's action (6-12 months for two-year institutions), and dates for supplemental information reports must be 1-12 months after the Commission's action. Dates are normally April 1, October 1, or November 1, if no visit follows submission of the report, and March 1, September 1, or October 1 if a visit follows.

Note: Potential Commission actions also include probation, show cause, and removal of accreditation. Because these actions do not ordinarily stem from an evaluation team visit, they are not included in this chart. See the Commission's policy statement, "Range of Commission Actions," for information on these actions.

MSCHE 11/13/07. Revised 022208, 102308.