STATEMENT OF ACCREDITATION STATUS

CARIBBEAN UNIVERSITY
Box 493, Road 167 Km. 21.2
Bayamon, PR 00960-0493
Phone: (787) 780-0070; Fax: (787) 785-0101
www.caribbean.edu

Most Recent Commission Action:

April 29, 2013:

To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request and to include the Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction within the scope of the institution's accreditation. To remind the institution of the Commission request for a monitoring report, due April 1 2014, documenting (1) progress in strengthening institutional research capability to support institutional assessment and evidence that assessment results are shared and discussed with appropriate constituents and used to inform planning and resource allocation (Standards 2, 7); (2) progress in strengthening the documentation of the process for assessment of student learning outcomes at the institutional and program levels, and evidence that assessment results are used to improve teaching and learning (Standard 14). The monitoring report should also document progress to date on (3) the development of specific, detailed implementation plans that address the key priorities of the institution and the assignment of responsibility with specific timelines and resources (Standard 2); (4) increasing the number of full-time faculty as it becomes economically viable (Standard 10); (5) the evaluation of faculty recruitment by academic program and discipline (Standard 10); and (6) the dissemination and integration of information related to the assessment of student learning within the university community and among its constituents (Standard 14). The Periodic Review Report is due June 1, 2016.

Brief History Since Last Comprehensive Evaluation:

November 16, 2006:

To acknowledge receipt of the Periodic Review Report and to reaffirm accreditation. To request a monitoring report, due October 1, 2008, documenting (1) steps taken to address dependence on part-time faculty; (2) implementation of a comprehensive student enrollment management plan that includes five year enrollment and retention trends; (3) progress in the implementation of a comprehensive and sustained process for the assessment of institutional effectiveness and student learning outcomes, including evidence of direct methods of assessment and that assessment information is used to improve services, teaching and learning at all levels; (4) further steps taken to strengthen the institution's finances. To direct a staff visit to discuss the Commission's expectation on reporting. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2010-2011.

June 28, 2007:

To thank the institution for receiving the Commission's representative. To remind the institution that a monitoring report is due October 1, 2008, documenting (1) steps taken to address dependence on part-time faculty; (2) implementation of a comprehensive student enrollment management plan that includes five year enrollment and retention trends; (3) progress in the implementation of a comprehensive and sustained process for the assessment of institutional effectiveness and student learning outcomes, including evidence of direct methods of assessment and that assessment information is used to improve services, teaching and learning at all levels; and (4) further steps taken to strengthen the institution's finances. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2010-2011.

November 20, 2008:

To accept the monitoring report submitted by the institution. To request that the self-study, in preparation for the 2010-2011 evaluation visit, document further progress in the implementation of (1) a comprehensive institutional strategic plan that links long-range planning to decision-making and budgeting processes (Standard 2); (2) an organized and sustained assessment process to evaluate and improve student learning, including evidence that student learning assessment information is used to improve teaching and learning (Standard 14); and (3) further steps taken to strengthen the institution's finances (Standard 3).

June 23, 2011:

To place the institution on probation due to insufficient evidence that the institution is in compliance with Standards 2 (Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal), 7 (Institutional Effectiveness), 10 (Faculty), and 14 (Assessment of Student Learning). To note that the institution remains accredited while on probation. To request a monitoring report, due by March 1, 2012, documenting evidence that the institution has achieved and can sustain ongoing compliance with Standards 2, 7, 10, and 14. To request that the monitoring report include, but not be limited to, documentation of (1) the development and implementation of a comprehensive institutional strategic plan that links long-range planning to decision-making, budgeting and resource allocation processes (Standard 2); (2) the development and implementation of a comprehensive, organized and sustained process for the assessment of institutional effectiveness, with evidence that assessment information is used in budgeting, planning and allocating resources (Standard 7); (3) steps taken to ensure that there is a sufficient number of appropriately qualified faculty to deliver academic programs and fulfill other responsibilities (Standard 10); and (4) the development and implementation of an organized and sustained assessment process to evaluate and improve student learning (Standard 14). To further request that the monitoring report document evidence of steps taken to clarify the role of the governing board and ensure on-going assessment of the board (Standard 4). A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. No substantive change requests will be considered until accreditation is reaffirmed. To direct a prompt Commission liaison guidance visit to discuss the Commission's expectations for reporting. To further note that the Periodic Review Report submission date will be established when accreditation is reaffirmed.

November 17, 2011:

To note the visit by the Commission's representative. To remind the institution that it has been placed on probation because of insufficient evidence that the institution is in compliance with Standards 2 (Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal), 7 (Institutional Effectiveness), 10 (Faculty), and 14 (Assessment of Student Learning). To note that the institution remains accredited while on probation. To further remind the institution of the monitoring report, due by March 1, 2012, documenting evidence that the institution has achieved and can sustain ongoing compliance with Standards 2, 7, 10, and 14. To request that the monitoring report include, but not be limited to, documentation of (1) the development and implementation of a comprehensive institutional strategic plan that links long-range planning to decision-making, budgeting and resource allocation processes (Standard 2); (2) the development and implementation of a comprehensive, organized and sustained process for the assessment of institutional effectiveness, with evidence that assessment information is used in budgeting, planning and allocating resources (Standard 7); (3) steps taken to ensure that there is a sufficient number of appropriately qualified faculty to deliver academic programs and fulfill other responsibilities (Standard 10); and (4) the development and implementation of an organized and sustained assessment process to evaluate and improve student learning (Standard 14). To further request that the monitoring report document evidence of steps taken to clarify the role of the governing board and ensure on-going assessment of the board (Standard 4). A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. No substantive change requests will be considered until accreditation is reaffirmed. To further note that the Periodic Review Report submission date will be established when accreditation is reaffirmed.

June 28, 2012:

To document receipt of the monitoring report, noting that the report necessitated extraordinary effort by the Commission's representatives performing the review, and to note the visit by the Commission's representatives. To remove probation because the institution is now in compliance with Standards 2 (Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal), 4 (Leadership and Governance), 7 (Institutional Assessment), 10 (Faculty) and 14 (Assessment of Student Learning), and to reaffirm accreditation. To request a monitoring report, due April 1 2014, documenting (1) progress in strengthening institutional research capability to support institutional assessment and evidence that assessment results are shared and discussed with appropriate constituents and used to inform planning and resource allocation (Standards 2, 7); (2) progress in strengthening the documentation of the process for assessment of student learning outcomes at the institutional and program levels, and evidence that assessment results are used to improve teaching and learning (Standard 14). To also request that the monitoring report document progress to date on (3) the development of specific, detailed implementation plans that address the key priorities of the institution and the assignment of responsibility with specific timelines and resources (Standard 2); (4) increasing the number of full-time faculty as it becomes economically viable (Standard 10); (5) the evaluation of faculty recruitment by academic program and discipline (Standard 10); and (6) the dissemination and integration of information related to the assessment of student learning within the university community and among its constituents (Standard 14). The Periodic Review Report is due June 1, 2016.

Next Self-Study Evaluation: 2020 - 2021

Next Periodic Review Report: 2016

Date Printed: May 15, 2013

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."