ERIC ED476880: Policies & Procedures. Fifth Edition.

126 Pages·1998·2.1 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 476 880
HE 035 904
Policies & Procedures. Fifth Edition.
TITLE
Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Philadelphia,
INSTITUTION
PA.
1998-00-00
PUB DATE
125p.; For the related publication, "Characteristics of
NOTE
Excellence," see ED 466 721.
AVAILABLE FROM
Publications Department, Middle States Commission on Higher
Education, 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104 ($18).
Fax: [phone].
Guides Non-Classroom (055)
PUB TYPE
EDRS Price MF01/PC06 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
Academic Standards; *Accreditation (Institutions);
DESCRIPTORS
Accrediting Agencies; *Colleges; *Evaluation Methods; *Higher
Education; *Institutional Evaluation; *Self Evaluation
(Groups)
*Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
This portfolio is a compendium of policies and procedures of
the Middle States Commission on Higher Education that address the
responsibilities of the Commission and its member institutions. It provides
general accreditation policies, as well as those that refer specifically to
the Self-study and peer review process, the programs and services offered by
member institutions, and the administrative procedures of the Commission. All
of the policies and procedures are elaborations of the standards for
accreditation set forth in "Characteristics of Excellence," the Commission's
guide to institutions considering accreditation. Topics in the portfolio are
(1) "General Accreditation Policies";
grouped into these categories:
(2)
"Institutional Programs & Services"; and
"Self-Study and Peer Review";
(3)
"Appeals." (SLD)
(4)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
00
00
r--
POLICIES
& PROCEDURES
Fifth Edition
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
<
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
document
ent has been reproduced as
12r
received from the person or organization
originating it.
TO THE EDUCATIONAL
RESOURCES
Minor changes have been made to
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
improve reproduction quality.
1
Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.
EST COPY AVAILABLE
LHE
Middle States Commission
on Higher Education
Published by the
Commission on Higher Education
Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools
3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104
Telephone: [phone];
Fax [phone]
http://www.msache.org
CO 1998, Copyright by the Commission on H igher Education
Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools
All rights reserved
First bound edition of former looseleaf policies, Policies and Procedures Handbook, 1971. Second edition 1973.
Third edition, Policies & Procedures, 1982.
Fourth edition Portfolio of Policies & Procedures, looseleaf in paper portfolio, undated.
Fifth edition, Policies & Procedures, 1998.
ii
CHE/MSA Policies and Procedures
POLICIES AND
I-LE
Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools
Commission on Higher Education
MSA
PROCEDURES
3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104
Fax: [phone]
Telephone: [phone];
Introduction
This portfolio is a compendium of Commission policies and procedures that address the responsibilities of
the Commission and its member institutions. It includes general accreditation policies, as well as those that
refer specifically to the self-study and peer review process, the programs and services offered by member
institutions, and administrative procedures of the Commission.
Taken together, Characteristics of Excellence, the Commission's basic handbooks, manuals, and other
publications, and this portfolio provide a comprehensive set of documents describing all aspects of the
Commission's accreditation protocol and related activities.
All of the policies and procedures are elaborations of the standards for accreditation set forth in Characteristics of
Excellence in Higher Education (1994), which ordinarily is reviewed approximately every seven years. The
review of Characteristics includes extensive constituent input, including open regional meetings which provide
opportunities for comment by member institutions. The Commission has established a steering committee to
consider possible revisions to Characteristics, and it expects to publish the next edition in 2001.
The review of policies and procedures begins after the cyclical review of Characteristics. In addition, the
Commission may develop new policies and procedures at its regular meetings each year. Policies and procedures
that are not essentially administrative in nature are submitted to the membership by mail for comment and for
approval before final approval.
The Commission invites member institutions to comment on its policies and procedures even when a formal
review is not in process. This type of feedback will help to improve Commission practices and keep the
Commission in touch with constituent views on important issues that affect policy development.
c:\ps-intro
BEST COPY AVATIABLE
4
POLICIES AND
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
1111-Z
3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104
PROCEDURES
Fax [phone]
Telephone: [phone];
MSA
Table of Contents
Introduction
Working Relations Between State Agencies &
CHE/MSA
Use and Distribution of Evaluation Team Reports
Range of Commission Actions on Accreditation
General Accreditation Policies
Follow-Up Reports and Special Visits
Code of Good Practice in Accrediting
Third Party Comment
in Higher Education
Institutional Responsibilities in Accreditation
Accreditation Liaison Officer
Institutional Programs & Services
The Evaluation & Accreditation Process
Assessing Prior Learning for Credit
El Proceso de Evaluacion y Accreditacion
Transfer & Articulation
Cycle & Timing of Accreditation Review
Contractual Relationships with Non-MSA
Substantive Change
Accredited Organizations
Collegiality & Public Communication in the
Collegiate Athletics
Accreditation Process
Consultants for Employment by Institutions
Accreditation of U.S. Institutions Outside the
United States
Statement Concerning the Application of Equity
& Diversity Principles
Principles of Good Practice in Institutional
Advertising, Student Recruitment &
Self-Study and Peer Review
Representation of Accreditation Status
Appraisal of Readiness for Initial Accreditation
Study Abroad Programs
Selection of Evaluation Teams and Chairs
Principles of Good Practice in Overseas
Evaluation Team Associates
International Education Programs for
Non-U.S. Nationals
Conflict of Interest Guidelines for Team Chairs
and Evaluators
Postsecondary Education Programs on Military
Bases
Evaluation of Institutions Operating
Interregionally
Considerations When Closing a Postsecondary
Educational Institution
Middle States Generalists Accompanying a
Specialized Agency Team
5
MSCHE Administration
Liaison & Communication between CHE &
Member or Candidate Institutions
Conflict of Interest Guidelines for Members of the
Commission on Higher Education
Conflict of Interest (Staff)
Maintenance & Retention of Commission Records
Review of Commission Policies and Procedures
Review of Complaints Involving Affiliated
Institutions
Schedule of Dues and Fees
Statement of Accreditation Status (SAS)
Financial Policy
Political Intervention in Education
Commission Reporting to the U.S. Department
of Education
Complaints against the Commission
Committee Meeting Guidelines
Notification of Accreditation Decisions
Appeals
Procedures for Appeals from Decisions of an
Accrediting Commission of the Association
(Booklet)
Revised July 2002
c: \ps -toc
6
CHE/MSA Policies and Procedures
iv
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
P

O
A
C
L
I
C
C
R
I
E
E
S
D
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
r
-
POLICY
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
CHE
3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104
STATEMENT
MSA
Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
.;)
Code of Good Practice in Accrediting
in Higher Education
(j) conducts evaluation visits by utilizing
In accordance with other regional accrediting
experienced and qualified evaluators under
commissions, the Middle States Commission on
conditions that assure impartial and objective
Higher Education follows these general guidelines:
judgment, including representation from the staff
(a) arranges evaluations or other visits always in
of other institutions knowledgeable about the types
consultation with institutional officers;
of programs of study offered by the institution to be
(b) permits the withdrawal of a request for initial
visited;
accreditation at any time (even after evaluation)
(k) appoints visitors who are acceptable to an
prior to final action;
institution; however, the Commission has final
(c) recognizes the right of an institution to be
authority in the formation of evaluation teams and
appraised in light of its own stated purposes so long
follow-up visitors;
as those purposes demonstrably fall within, and
(1) cooperates with other accrediting agencies so far
adequately reflect, the expectations of institutions
as possible in scheduling joint visits when an
defined by the Commission in Characteristics of
institution so requests;
Excellence in Higher Education;
(m) provides for ample consultation during an
(d) considers a program or programs of study at an
evaluation visit between and among the team
institution, including its administration and
members and the faculty and staff of an institution,
financing, not on the basis of a single predetermined
including the chief executive officer, his or her
pattern but directly in relationship to the mission,
designated representatives, and members of the
operation and goals of the entire institution;
governing board;
(e) establishes criteria for accreditation in terms that
(n) provides opportunities for interviewing students
are manifestly relevant to the quality of an
during evaluation visits;
institution, with respect for the principle of
institutional uniqueness;
(o) provides the president of an institution being
evaluated an opportunity to review a draft of the
(f) uses only relevant qualitative and quantitative
evaluation report prepared by the visiting team and
information in its evaluation process;
to comment on its accuracy before it is submitted to
(g) assists and stimulates improvement in the
the Commission;
educational effectiveness of an institution, and to this
(p) considers decisions relative to accreditation only
end is prepared to provide consultative assistance
after an institution has submitted a formal response
separate from the accrediting process;
to the substance of the evaluation report, and when
(h) encourages sound educational experimentation
the team chair is present and the views of the
and innovation;
evaluation team are adequately represented;
(i) de4igns the evaluation process not only to obtain
(q) regards the text of the evaluation report as
information for visiting evaluators but primarily to
confidential between an institution and the
stimulate an institution to evaluate and improve
Commission;
itself;
8
preclude the Commission's grant of candidacy or
(r) permits an institution to make such public
disposition of evaluation reports as it desires,
accreditation.
provided they are not used to misrepresent its status;
(4) If the Commission learns that an institution that has
candidacy or accredited status with the Commission is
(s) refrains from conditioning accreditation upon
the subject of an adverse action by another recognized
payment of fees for purposes other than membership
accreditor or has been placed on probation or an
dues or actual evaluation costs;
equivalent status by another recognized accreditor, the
(t) notifies an institution in writing within 30 days
Commission promptly reviews the accreditation or
regarding any accreditation decision;
candidacy of the institution to determine if the
Commission also should take adverse action or place
(u) revokes accreditation only after advance notice
the institution on probation or show cause.
has been given to an institution that such action is
(5) The Commission shares with other appropriate
contemplated, and the reasons therefor, sufficient to
recognized accrediting organizations and recognized
permit timely rejoinder and to pursue established
State approval agencies information about the
procedures for appeal and review.
accreditation status of an institution and any adverse
(v) notifies the U.S. Department of Education,
actions it has taken against an accredited or candidate
appropriate State agencies and the public in
institution.
accordance with CHE policy and federal regulation.
Regard for Decisions of States and
October 1966
Other Accrediting Organizations
February 1984
February 1991
In making accreditation decisions, the Middle States
Issued 1993
Revised (Approved by Membership): April 1996
Commission on Higher Education adheres to these
Revised by the Commission November 2001
guidelines relative to the decisions of States and other
accrediting organizations:
c: \ps -goodp
(1) The Commission does not accredit or grant
candidacy to institutions that lack legal authorization
under applicable State law to provide a program of
education beyond the secondary level.
(2) The Commission does not grant candidacy, initial
accreditation, or renewed accreditation to an institution
if it is known that the institution is the subject of: a
pending or final action brought by a State agency to
suspend, revoke, withdraw, or terminate the
institution's legal authority to provide postsecondary
education in the State; a decision by an accrediting
organization, which is recognized by the U.S.
Secretary of Education, to deny accreditation or
candidacy; a pending or final action brought by a
recognized accreditor to suspend, revoke, withdraw, or
terminate the institution's accreditation or candidacy;
or probation or an equivalent status imposed by a
recognized accreditor.
(3) If the Commission grants candidacy or
accreditgtion to an institution described in (2) above,
the Cortupission provides to the U.S. Secretary of
Education, within 30 days of its action, a thorough and
reasonable explanation, consistent with its standards,
why the action of the other accreditor does not
9
Code of Good Practice in Accrediting
CHE/MSA Policy Statement
2
POLICY
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
CHE
3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104
STATEMENT
MSA Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Institutional Responsibilities
in the Accreditation Process
Dealing with Constituencies
ccreditation is the educational community's
means of self-regulation through quality
and the Public
ssurance and improvement. The accrediting
An important aspect of institutional responsibility in
process is intended to strengthen and sustain the
accreditation is the integrity with which the institution
quality and integrity of higher education, making it
deals with its constituencies and the public. As noted in
worthy of public confidence and minimizing the scope
the Commission's policy, "Collegiality and Public
or exercise of external control.
Communication in the Accrediting Process," the
As stated in the primary document of the Middle States
CHE and its member institutions have a shared
Commission on Higher Education, Characteristics of
responsibility for maintaining educational quality and
Excellence in Higher Education,
public confidence in higher education.
[T]he extent to which each educational institution
Accreditation rests on trust and good faith in the
accepts and fulfills the responsibilities inherent in
integrity of institutions and their leaders.
that process is a measure of its concern for freedom,
The Commission relies on the information conveyed in
independence and quality in higher education and its
self-study reports, catalogs, and other institutional
commitment to striving for and achieving excellence
publications, and on the findings of visiting evaluation
in its endeavors.
teams. The openness with which evaluators are
received and the access they are given to an
There are many ways in which institutions may affirm
institution's records are a measure of the trust and good
the value and realize the benefits of accreditation.
faith necessary to the effectiveness and credibility of
As each undertakes its institutional self-study and
accreditation. An institution's responsibility to provide
participates in other aspects of the accrediting process,
such access and openness is a central aspect of the
the Commission urges particular attention to several
accrediting process.
basic institutional responsibilities. The institution's
commitment to quality and regard for accreditation
CHE holds confidential those documents, such as the
fundamentals are reflected in an institution's
self-study and the evaluation team report, that describe
an institution's strengths and weaknesses and other
integrity in dealing with its constituencies and
information upon which an accreditation decision is
the public;
based. The policy statement, "Collegiality and Public
involvement of administrators, faculty, students,
Communication in the Accrediting Process," notes that
and others in the self-study process; and
"by promoting honest and open analysis in this
collegial enterprise, the Commission offers the best
commitment to continuous improvement.
path to educational excellencea path which
These responsibilities should be considered in the
ultimately serves not only our higher education
context of the Commission's statements in
institutions but the public as well." Although the
Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education.
Commission will make available to the public
summary information contained in the "Statement of
Accreditation Status," it is the responsibility of the
institution to provide any other information pertaining
3EST COPY AVAILABLE
10