Mid-Point Peer Review FAQ

What is the Mid-Point Peer Review?

The Mid-Point Peer Review, or MPPR, is a peer review of the accumulated financial data, student achievement data and responses to Commission recommendations (if requested in a prior Commission action) submitted by institutions through a series of Annual Institutional Updates. For more information, please see Annual Institutional Update – AIU and/or the Accreditation Review Cycle and Monitoring Policy and Procedures.

What will be reviewed?

Peer evaluators will review the MPPR Data Report which compiles five years of accumulated data indicators from the AIU, optional information submitted by the institution in the AIU, as well as contextual information provided by the institution about the institution’s performance on the data indicators (Institutional Comment). Peer evaluators will confirm the level of concern and determine if follow-up information is required. If an institution was directed by the Commission to provide Recommendations Responses, peer evaluators will review the submitted Recommendations Responses and determine if the institution is responding appropriately.

What are the intended outcomes of the MPPR?

Peer evaluators will analyze the data report and confirm that trends observed in the data do not raise concerns about the institution’s financial health and student achievement. If an institution was directed by the Commission to provide Recommendations Responses, peer evaluators will review the submitted Recommendations Responses and determine if the institution is responding appropriately.

The MPRR is an interim review that is part of the accreditation review cycle. The purpose of the review is to identify any concerns through a peer review and analysis of key data indicators. Through this review, peer evaluators will confirm that there are no concerns, moderate concerns, or serious concerns related to the institution’s ability to continue to meet the Commission’s standards for accreditation, requirements of affiliation, policies and procedures, and federal compliance requirements. Peer evaluators will also review the institution’s responses to Commission recommendations to confirm that the institution is making appropriate progress in those areas. As part of this process, the Commission will provide feedback to the institution and may request further information on specific areas of concern or issues.

When will my institution have its MPPR?

The Commission will conduct the Mid-Point Peer Review (MPPR) midway through the accreditation review cycle.  The MPPR is conducted during the fall of the year indicated on the institution’s Statement of Accreditation Status (SAS) accessed via the Commission’s website. Commission action takes place in the next year.

What is the best way to prepare for the MPPR?

The institution does not need to provide a written report nor any additional materials for the MPPR, but the institution must submit its Annual Institutional Update each year.  The institution should be prepared to submit an Institutional Comment for any identified areas of concern as well as a formal Institutional Response to the peer evaluators’ findings. Beginning in July 2020, the Commission will provide online training for institutions undergoing the MPPR.

How will Peer Evaluators be trained?

Consistent with all MSCHE accreditation processes, peer evaluators will be trained to conduct the MPPR, and training will be specific to the indicator guidelines as well as the expectations when evaluating institutional responses to Commission recommendations.

What indicators and guidelines will be used to provide feedback to the institutions?

For the MPPR indicators and guidelines please expand the category information for the 2020 cohort below. These indicators and guidelines were also used for the 2019 cohort.

Student Achievement Two-Year Institution

  Indicators Level of Concern
  No/minimal Moderate Serious
Student Achievement

Two-Year Institution

The institution’s student success performance is minimally/not concerning. This is because the graduation rate has consistently been above 15% for the last four years. Additionally, the graduation rate has remained relatively level during this time.

Guidelines: Above 15% for last four years

No significant decrease in graduation rate (10% or more comparing current year to four years ago).

The institution’s student success performance is moderately concerning. This is because the graduation rate has been between 10-15% during the last four years and/or the graduation rate has seen a 10% or greater decrease over the last four years.

Guidelines: For last four years (no value below 10%) some values between 10-15

and/or

A drop of 10% or more in graduation rate comparing current year to four years ago.

The institution’s student success performance is seriously concerning because the graduation rate has been below 10% in the last four years.

Guidelines: 1 or more values below 10% in the last four years.

Student Achievement Four-Year Institution

  Indicators Level of Concern
  No/minimal Moderate Serious
Student Achievement

Four-Year Institution

The institution’s performance is minimally/no concern because the graduation rate has consistently been above 25% for the last four years. Additionally, the graduation rate has remained relatively level during this time.

Guidelines: Above 25% for last four years

No significant decrease in graduation rate (10% or more comparing current year to four years ago).

 

The institution’s performance is moderately concerning because the graduation rate has been between 10-25% during the last four years and/or the graduation rate has seen a 10% or greater decrease over the last four years.

Guidelines: For last four years (no value below 10%) some values between 10-25

and/or

A drop of 10% or more in graduation rate comparing current year to four years ago.

 

The institution’s performance is seriously concerning because the graduation rate has been below 10% in the last four years.

Guidelines:  1 or more values below 10% in the last four years.

Viability and Capacity

  Indicators Level of Concern
No/minimal Moderate Serious
Viability and Capacity The institution’s Viability/Capacity performance is minimally/not concerning because the FTE has remained relatively level during the last four years.

Guidelines: Comparing Time 1 to next four years to determine increase or decrease by less than 15% FTE.

The institution’s Viability/Capacity performance is moderately concerning because FTE has fluctuated by 15-30% over the last four years.

Guidelines: Comparing Time 1 to next four years to determine increase or decrease are greater than 15% and less than 40%.

The institution’s Viability/Capacity performance is seriously concerning because FTE has fluctuated by more than 40% in the last four years.

Guidelines:  Comparing Time 1 to next four years to determine increase or decrease are greater than 40.

Financial Health 

  Indicators Level of Concern
No/minimal Moderate Serious
Financial Health The institution’s Financial Health performance is minimally/not concerning. This is because CFI score has remained above 1 for the last four years, and the Change in Net Assets has been positive for three of the last four years.

Guidelines: CFI>1 for all 4 years

Change in Net Assets positive for three or more years.

The institution’s Financial Health performance is moderately concerning. This is because CFI score has been in the range of 1 to -1 for one to three years of the last four years; and/or Change in Net Assets has been negative for two to three of the last four years.

Guidelines CFI <1 and >-1 in last 4 years or Change in Net Assets  negative for two to three years.

The institution’s Financial Health performance is seriously concerning. This is because CFI score has been below -1 for all four years and Change in Net Assets has been below zero for all four years.

Guidelines: CFI<-1 last four years and Change in Net Assets negative for last four years.

 

 

How can my institution provide contextual information related to the MPPR?

In addition to the ability to upload optional data during each AIU submission, institutions with identified concerns in the MPPR Data Report may provide additional contextual information after reviewing the report by using the Institutional Comment form. Responses are limited to 2000 characters (including spaces). The inclusion of tables, graphs, or additional uploads is not permitted.

Will my institution know what the evaluators conclude? 

Yes. Peer evaluators will develop a report that will indicate whether there are any concerns resulting from the MPPR. This report is shared with the institution. The peer evaluators’ findings will be available to the institution in the form of a Mid-Point Peer Review Evaluator Report so that institutional representatives can prepare an Institutional Response.

What should be included in the Institutional Response?

The Institutional Response is an important component of the Mid-Point Peer Review and should be a clear statement to the Commission that the institution has received and reviewed the MPPR Peer Evaluator Report. In its Institutional Response the institution may:

  • Concur with the content of the Mid-Point Peer Review Evaluator Report;
  • Respond to the Report with clarifications or additional information;
  • Question the evaluators’ conclusion or findings of concerns;
  • Question the evaluators’ decision to propose a recommendation; and/or
  • Append a limited number of focused documents specific to the data indicators to the Institutional Response.

As in the Institutional Response to the Team Report during the Self-Study Evaluation, the institution will upload a letter from the president of the institution to the Commission on the institution’s letterhead focused on the evaluators’ conclusions. If the evaluators propose that the Commission give the institution a recommendation, the Institutional Response may address the need for the recommendation.  The Institutional Response is not intended to provide the “further evidence” mentioned in the proposed recommendation.

What will the Commission do as a result of the MPPR?

The Commission will act on the MPPR according to the policy and procedures outlined in Accreditation Actions. Those actions include to note that no concerns were raised by the review; or stipulate areas of emphasis to be included in the next self-study; or to request institutional updates in conjunction with the AIU; or to request a focused report on specific issues, which will be followed by a focused team visit.   As always, the Commission action will be communicated to the institution soon after the meeting at which it is taken.

What training will the Commission provide to institutions?

The Commission will provide online training for institutions in July/August, 2020. Institutions may register up to 7 people per training session.

When will the Commission invoice institutions for the MPPR?

The Commission will invoice institutions in July 2020, as described in the MSCHE Dues and Fees policy and procedures.

Will there be additional information prior to the MPPR?

Yes.  This FAQ will be regularly updated as we receive and review questions from institutions.  Institutional representatives will be informed that they are approaching the MPPR and reminded that they do not need to do anything beyond submitting their AIU in the usual manner.  They will be provided with information and training about preparing and submitting contextual information (Institutional Comment) and the Institutional Response to the peer evaluators’ findings.

What do I do if I have questions about the MPPR? 

Questions about the MPPR can be sent to MPPR@msche.org. In addition, this FAQ will be updated as needed.

This page was updated on June 2, 2020.