Section name

Content

Length

Written by

Comments

Introduction

Size of the faculty, its programs, the student body, buildings, and other general matters.  Use the introduction from the self-evaluation

500 words

Describe the context of the programs, giving pertinent facts for the reader

Profile

·         Classroom teaching

How the CT program meets standards 1, 2, 3, 5

About 300 words per standard per program + grade A-D

Assessor B (with C)

In this section, the team reports its findings and judgements about how each of the programs being reviewed meet Standards 1, 2, 3, 5

·         Maths education

How the maths education program meets standards 1, 2, 3, 5

"

Assessor C (with D)

Standards 4,6+7 are written for all programs being reviewed as a single piece.

·         Art education

How the art education program meets standards 1, 2, 3, 5

"

Assessor D (with E)

·         Work in schools

         (standard 4)

How all programs visited meet standard 4

"

Assessor F

Integrated in each program

·         Professional studies courses

How they contribute to the programs

300-500 words + grade A-D

Assessor E (with B)

Integrated in each program

·         Standard 6+7 (Management and Quality assurance)

How well standard 6+7 is met for the faculty in relation to the programs being reviewed.

300-500 words + grade for each

Chair

How each standard is met is graded from A-D, A=good, D=not satisfactory

Conclusions and Recommendations

Principal strengths and weaknesses of the programs

Typically 5-7 strengths and a similar number of weaknesses

Chair, working with the whole team

Strengths and weaknesses should flow logically from the Profile sections.  Recommendations should flow logically from the weaknesses.

Recommendation on

Accreditation

Full accreditation or other

Recommendation plus rationale (300 words)

Chair, working with the whole team

The team’s recommendation should be based on the above findings and judgements.