STATEMENT OF ACCREDITATION STATUS

SUNY COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY AT DELHI
2 Main Street
Delhi, NY 13753
Phone: (607) 746-4000; Fax: (607) 746-4208
www.delhi.edu

Chief Executive Officer: Dr. Candace S. Vancko, President
System: State University of New York System Administration
Dr. Nancy L. Zimpher, Chancellor
State University Plaza
Albany, NY 12246
Phone: (518) 320-1355; Fax: (518) 320-1560
INSTITUTIONAL INFORMATION
Enrollment (Headcount): 3151 Undergraduate
Control: Public
Affiliation: Government-State Systems- Supervised by SUNY
Carnegie Classification: Baccalaureate/Associate's
Degrees Offered: Postsecondary Certificate (>=1 year, < 2 years), Associate's, Bachelor's;
Distance Education Programs: Fully Approved
Accreditors Recognized by U.S. Secretary of Education: American Veterinary Medical Association, Council on Education; National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission
Other Accreditors: American Council for Construction Education; American Culinary Federation; American Design Drafting Association; Automotive Service Excellence; National Automotive Technicians Education Foundation; Interstate Renewable Energy Council
Instructional Locations
Branch Campuses: None
Additional Locations: Onondaga Community College, Syracuse, NY; Schenectady County Community College, Schenectady, NY; Suffolk County Community College, Riverhead, NY; Tompkins Cortland Community College, Dryden, NY
Other Instructional Sites: Andes Central School, Andes, NY; Charlotte Valley Central School, Davenport, NY; Cherry Valley High School, Cherry Valley/Springfield, NY; Cooperstown Central School, Cooperstown, NY; DCMO BOCES/New Visions, Sidney Center, NY; DCMO BOCES/New Visions, Delhi, NY; Delaware Academy, Delhi, NY; Downsville Central School, Downsville, NY; Edmeston High School, Edmeston, NY; Family Foundation, Hancock, NY; Franklin Central School, Franklin, NY; Gilboa/Conesville High School, Gilboa/Conesville, NY; Hancock High School, Hancock, NY; Laurens Central School, Laurens, NY; Margaretville High School, Margaretville, NY; Milford High School, Milford, NY; Morris High School, Morris, NY; NCOC BOCES, Grand Gorge, NY; Oneonta City School District, Oneonta, NY; Roxbury High School, Roxbury, NY; Sidney High School, Sidney, NY; South Kortright High School, South Kortright, NY; Stamford Central School, Stamford, NY; Unatego High School, Unadilla, NY; Walton High School, Walton, NY; Windham Ashland Jewett Central School, Windham, NY; Worcester Central School, Worcester, NY
ACCREDITATION INFORMATION
Status: Member since 1952
Last Reaffirmed: June 27, 2013

Most Recent Commission Action:
June 27, 2013: To accept the monitoring report and to note the visit by the Commission's representatives. To remove the warning and to reaffirm accreditation because the institution is now in compliance with Standard 14 (Assessment of Student Learning). To request a monitoring report, due October 1, 2014, documenting (1) that the institution's administrative structure facilitates learning and fosters quality improvement, and that qualified administrative leaders are in place appropriate to the goals, type, size, and complexity of the institution and who have the skills and time necessary to discharge their duties effectively (Standard 5); and (2) evidence of the further implementation of a documented, organized, and sustained process to assess the achievement of clearly articulated statements of student learning outcomes in all programs, including general education, demonstrating sufficient simplicity, practicality and ownership to be sustainable and providing convincing evidence that assessment information is used to improve teaching and learning (Standard 14). The Periodic Review Report is now due on November 1, 2018.

Brief History Since Last Comprehensive Evaluation:
November 15, 2007: To accept the Periodic Review Report, to reaffirm accreditation, and to request a progress letter, due by November 1, 2009, documenting (1) further development and implementation of an organized and sustainable assessment process with evidence that results are being used to improve teaching, learning, and institutional effectiveness (Standards 14 and 7); (2) progress made in efforts to increase enrollment (Standard 2); (3) progress made in efforts to establish new online degree programs (Standard 13). The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2011-12.
June 30, 2009: To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request and to provisionally include the following additional locations within the scope of the institution's accreditation, pending a site visit to each location within six months of commencing operations: (1) Onondaga Community College, 4585 West Seneca Turnpike, Syracuse, NY 13215; and (2) Tompkins Cortland Community College, 170 North Street, Dryden, NY 13053. To remind the institution of the progress letter, due November 1, 2009, documenting (1) further development and implementation of an organized and sustainable assessment process with evidence that results are being used to improve teaching, learning, and institutional effectiveness (Standards 14 and 7); (2) progress made in efforts to increase enrollment (Standard 2); and (3) progress made in efforts to establish new online degree programs (Standard 13). The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2011- 2012.
March 4, 2010: To accept the progress letter. To request that the self-study, in preparation for the 2011-2012 evaluation visit, document the use of direct methods for assessing institutional effectiveness and for assessing student learning in all areas of the curriculum, with evidence that assessment information is used systematically to improve teaching, learning, planning, and decision-making (Standards 7 and 14).
June 24, 2010: To thank the institution for receiving the Commission's representative and to affirm inclusion of the additional locations at Onondaga Community College, 4585 West Seneca Turnpike, Syracuse, NY 13215; and Tompkins Cortland Community College, 170 North Street, Dryden, NY 13053 within the scope of the institution's accreditation. To remind the institution that the self-study, in preparation for the 2011-2012 evaluation visit, document the use of direct methods for assessing institutional effectiveness and for assessing student learning in all areas of the curriculum, with evidence that assessment information is used systematically to improve teaching, learning, planning, and decision-making (Standards 7 and 14).
June 28, 2011: To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request. To include the additional location at Suffolk County Community College, Eastern Campus, 121 Speonk Riverhead Road, Riverhead, NY 11901 within the scope of the institution's accreditation. The Commission requires written notification within thirty days of the commencement of operations at the additional location. In the event that operations at this site do not commence within one calendar year from the approval of this action, approval will lapse. To remind the institution that the self-study, in preparation for the 2011-2012 evaluation visit, should document the use of direct methods for assessing institutional effectiveness and for assessing student learning in all areas of the curriculum, with evidence that assessment information is used systematically to improve teaching, learning, planning, and decision-making (Standards 7 and 14).
June 28, 2012: To warn the institution that its accreditation may be in jeopardy because of insufficient evidence that the institution is currently in compliance with Standard 14 (Assessment of Student Learning). To note that the institution remains accredited while on warning. To request a monitoring report, due March 1, 2013, documenting that the institution has achieved and can sustain compliance with Standard 14, including but not limited to (1) the development and implementation of a documented, organized, and sustainable process to assess the achievement of student learning goals in all programs, including general education, including multiple measures that maximize the use of existing data and information, and providing evidence that assessment information is used to improve teaching and learning (Standard 14). In addition, to request that the monitoring report provide documentation of (2) an assessment of the effectiveness of administrative structures in relation to recently implemented shared services agreements, including evidence that there is a chief executive officer in place whose primary responsibility is to lead the institution toward the achievement of its goals, and that there are qualified administrative leaders in place appropriate to the goals, type, size, and complexity of the institution (Standard 5). A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. To direct a prompt liaison guidance visit to discuss the Commission's expectations. The due date for the next Periodic Review Report will be established when accreditation is reaffirmed.
November 15, 2012: To note the visit by the Commission's representative. To remind the institution that its accreditation may be in jeopardy because of insufficient evidence that the institution is currently in compliance with Standard 14 (Assessment of Student Learning). To note that the institution remains accredited while on warning. To remind the institution of the monitoring report, due March 1, 2013, documenting that the institution has achieved and can sustain compliance with Standard 14, including but not limited to (1) the development and implementation of a documented, organized, and sustainable process to assess the achievement of student learning goals in all programs, including general education, including multiple measures that maximize the use of existing data and information, and providing evidence that assessment information is used to improve teaching and learning (Standard 14). In addition, to request that the monitoring report provide documentation of (2) an assessment of the effectiveness of administrative structures in relation to recently implemented shared services agreements, including evidence that there is a chief executive officer in place whose primary responsibility is to lead the institution toward the achievement of its goals, and that there are qualified administrative leaders in place appropriate to the goals, type, size, and complexity of the institution (Standard 5). A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. The due date for the next Periodic Review Report will be established when accreditation is reaffirmed.

Next Self-Study Evaluation: 2022 - 2023

Next Periodic Review Report: 2018

Date Printed: April 17, 2014

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 - Fully Approved, Approved (one program approved) or Not Approved indicates whether or not the institution has been approved to offer diploma/certificate/degree programs via distance education (programs for which students could meet 50% or more of the requirements of the program by taking distance education courses). Per the Commission's Substantive Change policy, Commission approval of the first two Distance Education programs is required to be "Fully Approved." If only one program is approved by the Commission, the specific name of the program will be listed in parentheses after "Approved."

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."