STATEMENT OF ACCREDITATION STATUS

FULTON-MONTGOMERY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
2805 State Highway 67
Johnstown, NY 12095-3790
Phone: (518) 762-4651; Fax: (518) 762-4334
www.fmcc.edu

Most Recent Commission Action:

June 25, 2009:

To accept the progress letter. The Periodic Review Report is due June 1, 2011.

Brief History Since Last Comprehensive Evaluation:

November 20, 2001:

To accept the Periodic Review Report and to reaffirm accreditation. To request a follow-up report by October 1, 2002, documenting (1) steps taken to implement effective data management for fiscal systems, and (2) progress in strengthening institutional finances. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2005-06.

November 20, 2002:

To accept the report submitted by the institution, and to commend the institution for progress to date in managing fiscal systems. To request a follow-up report by April 1, 2003, describing steps taken to increase financial support from the sponsoring counties. A visit will follow submission of the report. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2005-2006.

April 18, 2003:

Staff postponed April 1, 2003 report to July 1, 2003.

June 10, 2003:

Institution requested and received delay in submission of July 1, 2003 report now due August 15, 2003.

November 19, 2003:

To accept the follow-up report submitted by the institution and to thank the institution for receiving the Commission's representatives. To request a monitoring report, due April 1, 2004, documenting (1) detailed financial planning including three-year budget estimates linked to academic and student services plans that define specific priorities and include required human and financial resources; (2) three-year fiscal projections with specific illustrations of enrollment and local sponsor support, including a continuation and expansion of that support; and (3) the completion of the facilities master plan developed through joint college and county efforts. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2005-06.

June 23, 2004:

To accept the report submitted by the institution. To request that the self-study, in preparation for the 2005-06 evaluation visit document the implementation of (1) the three-year financial plan, including three-year fiscal projections for sponsor support; and (2) a feasible plan to eliminate reliance on the institution's fund balance when it reaches the five percent point as projected in FY 2007.

June 22, 2006:

To warn the institution that its accreditation may be in jeopardy and to request a monitoring report, due October 1, 2007, documenting: (1) an organized and sustainable assessment process and plan to evaluate student learning, including evidence that faculty have developed learning goals and objectives for all course syllabi, evidence that learning goals are clearly articulated at all levels (institutional, degree/program, course), and evidence that assessment results are shared with all constituencies and are used to improve teaching and learning; (2) an organized and sustainable assessment process and plan to evaluate overall institutional effectiveness in achieving mission and goals (including student learning), and evidence that assessment results are used to improve institutional effectiveness and for institutional planning and budgeting; and, (3) an updated rolling three-year financial plan, approved by the Joint Commission of Trustees and Supervisors, that is consistent with expenditures outlined in the institution's three-year strategic plan. A visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. The Commission also directed an early staff visit for the purpose of discussing the Commission's expectations regarding reporting.

November 16, 2006:

To thank the institution for receiving the Commission's representative and to remind the institution that the Commission has issued a warning that its accreditation might be in jeopardy. To further remind the institution that a monitoring report is due by October 1, 2007, documenting: (1) an organized and sustainable assessment process and plan to evaluate student learning, including evidence that faculty have developed learning goals and objectives for all course syllabi, evidence that learning goals are clearly articulated at all levels (institutional, degree/program, course), and evidence that assessment results are shared with all constituencies and are used to improve teaching and learning; (2) an organized and sustainable assessment process and plan to evaluate overall institutional effectiveness in achieving mission and goals (including student learning), and evidence that assessment results are used to improve institutional effectiveness and for institutional planning and budgeting; and (3) an updated rolling three-year financial plan, approved by the Joint Commission of Trustees and Supervisors, that is consistent with expenditures outlined in the institution's three-year strategic plan. The Commission has also directed a visit following submission of the monitoring report.

December 20, 2006:

To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request submitted by the institution and to include the A.A. in Liberal Arts & Sciences: General Studies, A.A. in Liberal Arts & Sciences: Social Science, the A.S. in Media Communication, the A.A.S. in Business Administration, and the A.S. in Business Administration degree programs offered via online delivery within the scope of the institution's accreditation. To note that the institution has previously been asked to provide a monitoring report by October 1, 2007, and to request that the following topics be added to that monitoring report: steps taken to develop and implement an assessment process and plan for online programs, and an assessment of the effectiveness of faculty training for online delivery of instruction. To remind the institution that the Commission has issued a warning that its accreditation might be in jeopardy, and has requested a monitoring report, due by October 1, 2007, documenting: (1) an organized and sustainable assessment process and plan to evaluate student learning, including evidence that faculty have developed learning goals and objectives for all course syllabi, evidence that learning goals are clearly articulated at all levels (institutional, degree/program, course), and evidence that assessment results are shared with all constituencies and are used to improve teaching and learning; (2) an organized and sustainable assessment process and plan to evaluate overall institutional effectiveness in achieving mission and goals (including student learning), and evidence that assessment results are used to improve institutional effectiveness and for institutional planning and budgeting; and (3) an updated rolling three-year financial plan, approved by the Joint Commission of Trustees and Supervisors, that is consistent with expenditures outlined in the institution's three-year strategic plan. The Commission has also directed a visit following submission of the monitoring report.

March 13, 2008:

To accept the monitoring report submitted by the institution, to thank the institution for receiving the Commission's representatives, to remove warning and to reaffirm accreditation. To request a progress letter, by April 1, 2009, documenting evidence that student learning assessment results are used in budgeting, planning, and resource allocation (Standards 7 & 14). The Periodic Review Report is due June 1, 2011.

Next Self-Study Evaluation: 2015 - 2016

Next Periodic Review Report: 2011

Date Printed: July 21, 2010

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. ANYA ("Approved but Not Yet Active") indicates that the location is included within the scope of accreditation but has not yet begun to offer courses. This designation is removed after the Commission receives notification that courses have begun at this location.

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 Education 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 education 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 report: 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."