UPDATE: Link to the full Academy monitoring report added at the end of this post.
Today the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (“MSCHE”) released its latest report on accreditation at the Academy. Unfortunately, the Academy remains on accreditation warning. Specifically, MSCHE
continue[s] to warn the institution that its accreditation may be in jeopardy because of insufficient evidence that it is in compliance with Requirement of Affiliation 7 (Institutional Planning) and Standard 2 (Planning, Resources, and Institutional Renewal).
The Academy’s official status remains that same as it has for the past year: it is on accreditation warning. This means that although the Academy remains accredited, it is still in danger of losing that accreditation.
MSCHE found that the Academy is now in compliance with Standard 3 (Institutional Resources), Standard 4 (Leadership and Governance), Standard 5 (Administration), and Standard 9 (Student Support Services). How MSCHE determined that the Academy was in compliance with Standard 4 (Leadership and Governance) is a mystery – by every objective measure, leadership and governance at the Academy has declined precipitously since last year when the Academy first failed that Standard.
We may soon learn more about how the Academy hid its leadership problems from MSCHE now that that the Administration no longer has an excuse to deny the public access to the monitoring report that it submitted to MSCHE.
UPDATE: Here is the full monitoring report, complete with appendices. (The version posted on the Academy website omits the appendices but this was provided to me in the belated — and blatantly illegal — response to my FOIA request.) I haven’t had time to wade through it. If you notice something of interest, post it in the comments. (Start your comment with “confidential” if you want to not have your name/username associated with it and I will approve it with any identifying info removed.)
Here’s where I disagree with your post to a certain degree. I see the Middle States update report, as I’ve read it, as good news. The Academy has to maintain its accreditation at all costs. This is true, even if we are not fully on board with what is probably the Academy’s self serving description or assessment of its own leadership, which Middle States has seemed to accepted. In the end, I want this particular headache (accreditation) off the table. Getting sea year on commercial ships restored to full capacity is the other priority.
As for my own concerns about the Academy’s current leadership, I am willing to rely on Admiral Buzby’s decisions regarding the academy. My personal views aside, if he chooses to keep Helis or relieve him, I can live with either decision, as long as I know that someone of Buzby’s character and experience is making that call and keeping a close eye on things– and everything I read about the Admiral indicates that he is more than capable of doing so. We have been hoping for someone like him to take charge at MARAD for years so let’s give him the opportunity to do his job and work on the assumption that whatever decision he eventually makes will be in the best interest of USMMA and its mids.
Keep up the good work.
I have been reading this Middle State recent announcement, and I am not sure where the SASH concern, particularly at sea, has been resolved by the current leadership. What area was it addressed under and more importantly where is Middle States saying it has been improved and corrected ?
The blame game is coming next I anticipate in who will be covering their positions and thoughts
For those reading these comments, pleas note that there are two different “Parent” names posting. I am the first post above. Someone else, is the second. As to the post above, I would like to address it.
Assuming that you are not being cynical, I would like to point out that the Middle States report that led to the accreditation warning never once mentioned “SASH, particularly at sea” as a problem. As such, it never had to be “resolved by the current leadership”, as you say in your post, for Middle States accreditation purposes. I would assume that that is why you do not see a reference to it in the more recent announcement.
“SASH, particularly at sea” seems to be a term created by the former MARAD leadership (and repeated by them for nearly a year even when confronted with the facts) to deflect from the real important findings made by Middle States — namely that the administration, management and leadership of the school were really the problem. Other than as used by MARAD’s and USMMA in their own self serving reports, statements and press releases, I have yet to see the term “SASH, particularly at sea” used anywhere else and certainly not in the Middle states report.
As always, I urge everyone to READ THE REPORT.