In preparation for NEASC evaluating team's visit in April 2009, the Saint Michael’s reaccreditation 2010 Self-Study Steering Committee will prepare an institutional Self-Study Report and provide the visiting evaluation team with full access to the extensive set of subsidiary documents that will shape the Report.

To produce a document that is comprehensive and that involves as many members of the community as possible, the Self-Study Steering Committee will involve the entire network of College programs and committees. The committee is therefore asking all committees and programs at Saint Michael’s to conduct their own self-studies, or self-appraisals.

We thank all of you in advance for your assistance in this process, which will help us determine  whether we are in compliance with the NEASC standards.  Equally important, this institutional self-study process is unfolding in tandem with the College’s strategic planning and image development initiative that are also under way. All of these efforts will enhance our institution’s effectiveness in shaping the decade ahead. We could not do this without your help
 

General Guidelines for program self-appraisals
The NEASC reaccreditation process is essentially a peer review process, and it is designed to be more formative and developmental than prescriptive. The Commission on Institutions of Higher Education (CIHE), seems to put equal weight on both the external and internal purposes that the   institutional self-study serves: The external purpose is quality assurance, and the internal purpose is "institutional improvement through rigorous self-analysis" (Self-Study Guide 2008, p. 7). In other words, the process is designed primarily to help institutions improve and become more effective. Indeed, institutional effectiveness is the single criterion that appears in all 11 Standards.
 

The individual program appraisals that the Steering committee seeks must therefore be honest and critical; each must provide a concise and accurate picture of the program as a dynamic entity.  The appraisal must be both descriptive and analytical as it addresses its successes and failures as well as its strengths and weaknesses and, more importantly, each must show what actions will be taken and/or planned to address them. Only through such critical and honest appraisals can the institutional Self-Study Report that we submit to NEASC provide a context for where we are today and our vision for the future of our College.
 

There are a total of 172 criteria encompassed within 11 Standards. Non-conformity with any single criterion will not necessarily diminish the likelihood of successful reaccreditation as long as the self-study is clear in its analysis of the issue, and is willing to develop strategies to respond to the issue as identified. However, if instead of addressing the issue, the self-study fails to acknowledge or address it, our omissions would raise questions about the integrity of our entire self-study process.

Each program and committee is therefore asked to write a self-appraisal that is as open, reflective, and critical, and to offer a plan of action to address any issues that the self-appraisal reveals.

The writers of these self-studies should review the 11 Standards and their criteria to know which ones are appropriate to your program or committee self-appraisal. However, no single self-study is expected to address the standards or their criteria specifically or directly. This responsibility lies with the subcommittees of the Self-Study Steering Committee who will write the chapters for each of the Standards. In doing so, each subcommittee will ask the same type of questions that the NEASC visiting team might raise: (1) Are the program self-appraisals comprehensive, consistent, and well documented?; (2) Have they addressed the issue of outcomes?; (3) Do they identify strategies to enhance institutional strengths and remedy problematic areas?; (4) Has the institution given due consideration to institutional effectiveness as it developed a plan to implement its projected initiatives?
 

The completed program and committee self-studies should be sent to both the appropriate vice presidents and to Kathie Balutansky by January 15, 2009.

After the Self-Study Steering Committee receives these individual self-studies, it will prepare the final Self-Study Report in a format that addresses the 172 NEASC criteria for reaccreditation.

What Does a Good Self-Appraisal Look like?
A good self-appraisal is one that provides the following:

1.      Description
2.      Analysis
3.      Projection
4.      Discussion of Institutional effectiveness
 

As indicated in the guidelines above, NEASC emphasizes the importance of analytical clarity and candor, evidence, and a discussion of institutional effectiveness. It is essential to provide evidence in support of the self-study assertions, especially evidence of programmatic assessment.