1 / 14

Follow-up Reporting Expectations Part II

Follow-up Reporting Expectations Part II. MSCHE 2009 Annual Conference Mary Ellen Petrisko. Monitoring Reports. “…when the institution meets the Commission’s standards …, but the Commission has concerns about ongoing compliance with one or more standards.”

job
Download Presentation

Follow-up Reporting Expectations Part II

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Follow-up Reporting Expectations Part II MSCHE 2009 Annual Conference Mary Ellen Petrisko

  2. Monitoring Reports • “…when the institution meets the Commission’s standards …, but the Commission has concerns about ongoing compliance with one or more standards.” • “…when the Commission places the institution on warning or probation because of a lack of evidence that the institution is in compliance with one or more standards.” • --Guidelines: Follow-Up Reports and Visits (Draft)

  3. Supplemental Reports • “The Commission postpones an accreditation decision and requests a supplemental report when it has insufficient information to substantiate…compliance with one or more accreditation standards.” • Intended only to allow institution to provide further information, not to give the institution time to formulate plans or initiate remedial action • Short-time line

  4. Length of monitoring and supplemental reports • No length prescribed • Previous guidelines said to limit monitoring reports to 25 pages, supplemental reports to 15 • Relatively short reports with well-organized appendices generally the best approach • Length should be proportionate to number and complexity of issues addressed

  5. Report organization and format • As for progress reports • Title page • Introduction • Progress to date and current status • Appendices of supporting documentation • Conclusion

  6. Submittal of reports • Same as for progress reports • If paper, four copies bound ONLY by staples or clamps (NO binders or folders) • Send to Evaluation Services Office at the Commission • If electronic: send as email attachments to info@msche.org or cmorrison@msche.org

  7. Preparing an effective report • READ AND UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSION’S ACTION • Understand the Commission’s underlying concerns and expectations • Read the relevant standard(s) and their fundamental elements in Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education • Review all reports considered by Commission when it took its action

  8. Preparing an effective report, cont’d • Address everything that is required • Write the report so that it clearly addresses the issues specified in the action • Don’t make the readers search for requested information • Focus on past and present, not intentions or pledges for the future • No “I’m a gonna”s

  9. Preparing an effective report, cont’d • Focus on outcomes • Provide documented evidence • Be forthright and honest • Be concise and well organized • Respect the readers’ time and energy: unnecessarily voluminous reports may frustrate and confuse the reader • Avoid data dumps and exclude irrelevant information and documentation

  10. Preparing an effective report, cont’d • Make the report easy to follow • If report is extensive, begin with outline of contents • Use subheadings, charts, bulleted text as appropriate • Clearly label supporting documents and provide clear references to them in text • Submit the report on time • Commission may consider an institution to have voluntarily allowed its accreditation to lapse if its report is not submitted on time

  11. Follow-up visits • Commission Liaison Guidance visits • To provide additional information so that institution fully understands Commission’s concerns • Typically conducted by vice president • Discussion of standards and expectations • Schedule varies according to issues at hand • NOT accreditation reviews; no Commission action other than to note visit

  12. Follow-up visits continued • Small team visit • May be directed after monitoring report or supplemental report • Required after monitoring report if institution is on warning or probation • Liaison identifies peer evaluators for team • Number, backgrounds, expertise vary according to issues in report • Liaison ordinarily accompanies team as resource

  13. Scheduling of small team visits • Typically last one or two days • At least one week after report due date • Early enough to allow for completion of team report, institutional response and chair’s confidential brief at least two weeks prior to Committee on Follow-up Activities • Liaison works with team chair and president on schedule for report submission

  14. Commission review and actions • Follow-up report (and if team visited, the team report, institutional response, and chair’s confidential brief) is considered by the Committee on Follow-up Activities (composed of Commissioners) • Reviewed by Commissioner reader and liaison • Recommendation for action is forwarded to Commission (March, June and November meetings) • Commission action is communicated to president, included in Statement of Accreditation Status

More Related