STATEMENT OF ACCREDITATION STATUS

GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY
800 Florida Avenue N. E.
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: (202) 651-5000; Fax: (202) 651-5508
www.gallaudet.edu

Most Recent Commission Action:

November 4, 2009:

To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request and to include the online Early Education Professional Development Leadership certificate program within the scope of the institution's accreditation. To remind the institution of the monitoring report, due by March 1, 2010, documenting (1) steps taken to integrate communication processes and advisory and administrative groups into the governance structure (Standard 4); (2) evidence of a climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff and administration for a range of backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives (Standard 6); and (3) ongoing implementation of a comprehensive, organized, and sustained process for the assessment of institutional effectiveness (Standard 7). A small team visit may follow submission of the report. To further remind the institution of a staff visit when a new president is appointed. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2012-2013.

Brief History Since Last Comprehensive Evaluation:

June 20, 2001:

To reaffirm accreditation. To request a follow-up report by April 1, 2003, documenting steps taken to address the issue of governance. The Periodic Review Report is due June 1, 2006.

June 25, 2003:

To accept the follow-up report and to request a progress letter by December 1, 2004, regarding further progress in steps taken to address the issue of governance. The Periodic Review Report is due June 1, 2006.

March 3, 2005:

To accept the progress letter submitted by the institution. The Periodic Review Report is due June 1, 2006.

November 16, 2006:

To acknowledge receipt of the Periodic Review Report and the staff-requested information report on governance and climate due November 9, 2006, to express serious concern regarding recent developments at the institution, to postpone a decision on reaffirmation of accreditation, and to direct a small team visit by January 12, 2007. To request a supplemental information report, due by March 1, 2007, on (1) the effectiveness of shared governance including presidential search process, (2) nurturance of a climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff, and administration for a range of backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives, (3) mission review and implementation of a comprehensive institutional strategic plan, (4) implementation of a comprehensive enrollment management plan that addresses student recruitment, retention, graduation, and placement, (5) evidence of the academic rigor of the degrees offered, and (6) procedures for ensuring that changes and issues affecting the institution are disclosed accurately and in a timely manner to the Commission. An additional visit may follow submission of the supplemental information report. To request a monitoring report, due by April 1, 2008, documenting (1) the institution's further response to recommendations from the 2001 evaluation team report and (2) implementation of a documented, organized and sustained process to assess the achievement of institutional and program-level student learning goals that includes direct evidence of student learning.

March 8, 2007:

To thank the institution for receiving the Commission's representatives. To remind the institution that a decision on reaffirmation of accreditation has been postponed. To note that the supplemental information report, due by March 1, 2007, covering topics previously identified to the institution, will be acted upon by the Commission at its June 2007 meeting, as will the additional visit that may follow submission of the supplemental information report. To remind the institution of the monitoring report, due by April 1, 2008, documenting (1) the institution's further response to recommendations from the 2001 evaluation team report, and (2) implementation of a documented, organized, and sustained process to assess the achievement of institutional and program-level student learning goals that includes direct evidence of student learning.

June 28, 2007:

To acknowledge receipt of the supplemental information report, to thank the institution for receiving the Commission's representatives, and to acknowledge progress to date in planning to bring the institution into compliance with Commission standards. To place the institution on probation because of a lack of evidence that the institution is currently in compliance with accreditation standards regarding Standards 1 (specifically mission), 2 (specifically planning), 4 (specifically governance), 6 (specifically climate), 8 (student admissions and retention), 11 (specifically academic rigor), and 7 and 14 (assessment). To note that the institution remains accredited while on probation. To request a monitoring report by September 15, 2007, documenting in detail: (1) steps taken to improve, and detailed evidence of, the effectiveness of shared governance including the presidential search process; (2) steps taken to improve, and detailed evidence of, a climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff and administration for a range of backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives; (3) detailed evidence of mission review and implementation of a comprehensive institutional strategic plan; (4) detailed evidence of implementation of a comprehensive enrollment management plan that addresses student recruitment, retention, graduation, and placement; and (5) detailed evidence of the academic rigor of degrees offered. A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. To request a second monitoring report, due December 1, 2007, documenting, in detail, further progress and evidence in the areas requested in the September 15, 2007, monitoring report. A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. To remind the institution of the monitoring report due April 1, 2008, documenting in detail: (1) the institution's further response to recommendations from the 2001 evaluation team report, and (2) implementation of a documented, organized, and sustained process to assess achievement of institutional and program-level student learning goals that includes direct evidence of student learning. To request that this monitoring report also document substantive, detailed, and compelling evidence of: (1) effective shared governance; (2) a climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff, and administration for a range of backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives; (3) successful implementation of an effective mission and strategic plan; (4) successful implementation of a comprehensive enrollment management plan that addresses student recruitment, retention, graduation, and placement and that supports the mission and strategic plan; and (5) the academic rigor of degrees offered. A small team visit will follow the submission of the monitoring report. The Commission may, at its discretion and based upon evidence supplied in each monitoring report, modify its requests for subsequent monitoring reports and small team visits.

November 15, 2007:

To accept the monitoring report, to thank the institution for receiving the Commission's representatives, and to commend the institution for progress to date in bringing the institution into compliance with Commission standards. To remove probation because of progress to date and evidence of the institution's capacity to make appropriate improvements within a reasonable period of time and to sustain itself in the long term, but to warn the institution that its accreditation may be in jeopardy because of insufficient evidence that the institution is currently in compliance with accreditation standards regarding Standards 1 (specifically mission), 2 (specifically planning), 4 (specifically governance), 6 (specifically climate), 11 (specifically academic rigor), and 7 and 14 (assessment). To note that warning is a less serious action than probation and that the institution remains accredited while on warning. To indicate that the monitoring report, due December 1, 2007, and the small team visit following submission of the monitoring report are no longer required. To remind the institution of the monitoring report due April 1, 2008. To request that, in lieu of prior Commission requests for this monitoring report, the report now document substantive, detailed, and compelling evidence of the following: (1) compliance with Standard 1 (Mission & Goals), including successful implementation of an effective mission; (2) compliance with Standard 2 (Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal), including successful implementation of the strategic plan; (3) compliance with Standard 4 (Leadership and Governance), including effective shared governance; (4) compliance with Standard 8 (Student Admissions and Retention), including successful implementation of a comprehensive enrollment management plan that addresses student recruitment, retention, graduation, and placement and that supports the mission and strategic plan; (5) compliance with Standard 14 (Assessment of Student Learning), including implementation of a documented, organized, and sustained process to assess achievement of institutional and student learning goals that includes direct evidence of student learning; (6) a climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff, and administration for a range of backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives (Standard 6); (7) the academic rigor of degrees offered (Standard 11); and (8) the institution's further response to recommendations from the 2001 evaluation team report. A small team visit will follow the submission of the monitoring report.

June 26, 2008:

To accept the monitoring report and to thank the institution for receiving the Commission's representatives. To remove the warning because of progress to date and to reaffirm accreditation. To request a monitoring report, due by March 1, 2010, documenting (1) steps taken to integrate communication processes and advisory and administrative groups into the governance structure (Standard 4); (2) evidence of a climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff and administration for a range of backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives (Standard 6); and (3) ongoing implementation of a comprehensive, organized, and sustained process for the assessment of institutional effectiveness (Standard 7). A small team visit may follow submission of the report. To direct a staff visit when a new president is appointed. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2012-2013.

December 17, 2008:

To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request submitted by the institution, and to include the online M.A. in International Development within the scope of the institution's accreditation. To remind the institution of the monitoring report, due by March 1, 2010, documenting (1) steps taken to integrate communication processes and advisory and administrative groups into the governance structure (Standard 4); (2) evidence of a climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff and administration for a range of backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives (Standard 6); and (3) ongoing implementation of a comprehensive, organized, and sustained process for the assessment of institutional effectiveness (Standard 7). A small team visit may follow submission of the report. To further remind the institution of a staff visit when a new president is appointed. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2012-2013.

Next Self-Study Evaluation: 2012 - 2013

Next Periodic Review Report: 2018

Date Printed: March 9, 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.

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 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."