Accreditation hub · working tools
Three working formats for a self-study or site-visit prep: an evidence matrix, a narrative review rubric, and a workplan. Built around the question every site visitor asks: prove it. These tools organize a school's own evidence — they never declare compliance.
Tool 1
One row per standard element. Fill it from the school's actual documents — never from aspiration.
| Standard / element | What we claim | Evidence we can show | Owner | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| e.g. 301(a) — learning outcomes | Outcomes are published and assessed | Catalog pages; assessment reports 2024–26 | Assoc. Dean, Academic Affairs | Strong Evidence / Potential Evidence Gap / … |
| e.g. 314 — assessment of student learning | Early assessment in first third of JD credits | Course assessment records; intervention logs | Director of Academic Support | |
| e.g. 306 — distance education | Credit hours within limits by delivery mode | Registrar accounting; RSI documentation | Registrar |
Verdict vocabulary only: Strong Evidence / Evidence Present but Could Be Strengthened / Potential Evidence Gap / Conflicting Evidence / Needs Verification / No Supporting Evidence Located. Never “compliant.”
Tool 2
Score every draft narrative section on these five dimensions before it goes to the full self-study. Paste a draft into Eli and it will run this review with your own words quoted back.
| Dimension | What “strong” looks like |
|---|---|
| Completeness | Answers the standard element actually asked — not a neighboring one. |
| Evidence | Every claim is backed by something concrete: a document, a dataset, a record. |
| Specificity | Names, dates, processes, numbers — not assertions (“the program provides excellent support” fails this test). |
| Ownership | A named person or office is responsible for the process described. |
| Follow-up | What happens when a problem is found: the improvement chain from data to intervention to reassessment. |
The weak-line test. Read each sentence and ask: could a reviewer ask “show me” and get a document? If not, the sentence is a claim awaiting evidence — rewrite it with the evidence attached, or flag it as a gap to close before the visit.
Tool 3
Every gap becomes an action with an owner, evidence, and a date. Highest-risk gaps first.
| Priority | Gap | Action | Owner | Evidence to produce | Due |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Assessment results not feeding program changes | Stand up annual outcomes-review meeting with minutes | Assoc. Dean | Meeting minutes showing data → decision → intervention | |
| 2 | Distance-ed credit accounting incomplete | Registrar audit of delivery-mode credits | Registrar | Audit report + RSI records |
Our read: reviewers trust implemented processes, not described ones. A policy proves a process is established; minutes, logs, and data prove it runs. When a workplan action is done, the evidence column is what the site team will actually read.