STATEMENT OF ACCREDITATION STATUS

CEDAR CREST COLLEGE
100 College Drive
Allentown, PA 18104-6196
Phone: (610) 606-4666; Fax: (610) 740-3763
www.cedarcrest.edu

Most Recent Commission Action:

October 18, 2006:

To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request submitted by the institution; to include the M.S. in Forensic Science within the scope of the institution's accreditation; and to request that the Periodic Review Report, due June 1, 2009, document progress in implementing the program. To remind the institution that the Periodic Review Report should also document (1) use of assessment results in institutional planning, resource allocation, and renewal and (2) evidence that student learning assessment information is used to improve teaching and learning.

Brief History Since Last Comprehensive Evaluation:

June 23, 2004:

To reaffirm accreditation. To request a monitoring report by April 1, 2006, documenting further development and implementation of (1) institution's plan for the assessment of institutional effectiveness, defining specific and measurable goals by area with objectives, activities, timelines, and assigned responsibilities, and (2) comprehensive plan for the assessment of student learning, integrating the major components of the curriculum. To request that the Periodic Review Report, due June 1, 2009, document (1) use of assessment results in institutional planning, resource allocation, and renewal, and (2) evidence that student learning assessment information is used to improve teaching and learning.

December 15, 2004:

Substantive Change Committee - to acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request submitted by Cedar Crest College and to include the B.S. in Business Administration degree program offered through distance learning delivery within the scope of the institution(s accreditation. To request a progress letter by April 1, 2006, documenting progress in the implementation of the distance learning degree program, including faculty training. To remind the institution that a monitoring report is due by April 1, 2006, documenting further development and implementation of (1) institution's plan for the assessment of institutional effectiveness, defining specific and measurable goals by area with objectives, activities, time lines, and assigned responsibilities and; (2) comprehensive plan for the assessment of learning, integrating the major components of the curriculum. The Commission also reminds the institution that the Periodic Review Report, due June 1, 2009, should document (1) use of assessment results in institutional planning, resource allocation, and renewal; and (2) evidence that student learning assessment information is used to improve teaching and learning.

December 21, 2005:

To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request submitted by the institution; to include the additional location at Allentown School District, Allentown, PA, within the scope of the institution's accreditation; and to direct a visit by Spring 2006. To remind the institution of the monitoring report, due by April 1, 2006, documenting further development and implementation of (1) institution's plans for the assessment of institutional effectiveness, defining specific and measurable goals by area with objectives, activities, timelines, and assigned responsibilities, and (2) comprehensive plan for the assessment of student learning, integrating the major components of the curriculum. To further remind the institution of the request that the Periodic Review Report, due June 1, 2009, document (1) use of assessment results in institutional planning, resource allocation, and renewal, and (2) evidence that student learning assessment information is used to improve teaching and learning.

December 22, 2005:

To acknowledge the institution's notification that the B.S. in Business Administration offered through distance learning delivery will not be implemented; and to indicate that the progress letter requested by April 1, 2006, is no longer required.

June 22, 2006:

To accept the monitoring report.

June 22, 2006:

To thank the institution for receiving the Commission's representative and to affirm the inclusion of the additional location at Allentown School District, Allentown, PA, within the scope of the institution's accreditation. To remind the institution of the request that the Periodic Review Report, due June 1, 2009, document (1) use of assessment results in institutional planning, resource allocation, and renewal, and (2) evidence that student learning assessment information is used to improve teaching and learning.

Next Self-Study Evaluation: 2013 - 2014

Next Periodic Review Report: 2009

Date Printed: June 29, 2009

DEFINITIONS

Branch Campus - A location of an institution that is geographically apart and independent of the main campus of the institution. The location is independent if the location: offers courses in educational programs leading to a degree, certificate, or other recognized educational credential; has its own faculty and administrative or supervisory organization; and has its own budgetary and hiring authority.

Additional Location - A location, other than a branch campus, that is geographically apart from the main campus and at which the institution offers at least 50 percent of an educational program.

Other Instructional Sites - A location, other than a branch campus or additional location, at which the institution offers one or more courses for credit.

Distance Learning Programs - Yes or No indicates whether or not the institution has been approved to offer one or more degree or certificate/diploma programs for which students could meet 50% or more of their requirements by taking distance learning courses.

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION ACTIONS

An institution's accreditation continues unless it is explicitly suspended or removed. In addition to reviewing the institution's accreditation status at least every 5 years, actions are taken for substantive changes (such as a new degree or geographic site, or a change of ownership) or when other events occur that require review for continued compliance. Any type of report or visit required by the Commission is reviewed and voted on by the Commission after it is completed.

In increasing order of seriousness, a report by an institution to the Commission may be accepted, acknowledged, or rejected.

Levels of Actions:

Grant or Re-Affirm Accreditation without follow-up

Defer a decision on initial accreditation: The institution shows promise but the evaluation team has identified issues of concern and recommends that the institution be given a specified time period to address those concerns.

Postpone a decision on (reaffirmation of) accreditation: The Commission has determined that there is insufficient information to substantiate institutional compliance with one or more standards.

Continue accreditation: A delay of up to one year may be granted to ensure a current and accurate representation of the institution or in the event of circumstances beyond the institution’s control (natural disaster, U.S. State Department travel warnings, etc.)

Recommendations to be addressed in the next Periodic Review Report: Suggestions for improvement are given, but no follow-up is needed for compliance.

Supplemental Information Report: This is required when a decision is postponed and are intended only to allow the institution to provide further information, not to give the institution time to formulate plans or initiate remedial action.

Progress letter: The Commission needs assurance that the institution is carrying out activities that were planned or were being implemented at the time of a report or on-site visit.

Monitoring report: There is a potential for the institution to become non-compliant with MSCHE standards; issues are more complex or more numerous; or issues require a substantive, detailed report. A visit may or may not be required.

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 Commission’s 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 institution’s capacity to make appropriate improvements in a timely fashion; or
3. the institution’s 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 Commission’s 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.

Suspend accreditation: Accreditation has been Continued for one year and an appropriate evaluation is not possible. This is a procedural action that would result in Removal of Accreditation if accreditation cannot be reaffirmed within the period of suspension.

Show cause why the institution's accreditation should not be removed: The institution is required to present its case for accreditation by means of a substantive report and/or an on-site evaluation. A "Public Disclosure Statement" is issued by the Commission.

Remove accreditation. If the institution appeals this action, its accreditation remains in effect until the appeal is completed.

Other actions are described in the Commission policy, "Range of Commission Actions on Accreditation."