Accreditation Readiness Weekly Call — May 6, 2026

1 — Attendees

Name	Title / Role	Department
Dr. Ilia Matos	Principal, Accreditation Consultant	Inaru Education Partners
Faisal (Sal) Ismail	Founder, President & CEO	Executive Leadership
Dr. Avis Chapman-Reese	Chief Academic Officer	Academic Affairs

2 — Purpose of Meeting

This weekly accreditation-readiness call focused on assessment planning — the foundation Dr. Matos identified as necessary before UMF can finalize its strategic plan. The session covered:

Review of the draft Institutional Assessment Plan prepared by Dr. Matos
A walkthrough of UMF's existing student, faculty, graduate, employer, and alumni surveys
Direct measures of institutional effectiveness — retention, graduation rate, and Maximum Time Frame (MTF)
A review of the graduation certification process and its supporting documentation
A data-integrity item requiring correction: UMF's official first-enrollment date as recorded across the catalog, enrollment agreements, and prior accreditor submissions
Continued evaluation of DEAC vs. Middle States (MSCHE) as UMF's accreditation pathway

3 — Key Discussion Points

4.1

Assessment Plan & Strategic Planning

Draft plan reviewed; mission/objectives revisions still needed to complete it

Dr. Matos distributed a draft institutional assessment plan scaled to UMF's current size and stage of growth, intentionally left open in places pending the revised mission and institutional objectives.
Assessment was framed as the institution's overall measure of effectiveness in meeting its mission — broader than the indirect-measure surveys UMF has used to date, and a required foundation for the strategic plan.
Dr. Avis confirmed the revised mission language has been inserted into the working document.
Appendix A of the draft plan is the assessment-cycle schedule — Dr. Avis to begin building this out as the next step.

4.2

Institutional Survey Review

Existing surveys walked through; several gaps identified against MSCHE/DEAC expectations

Survey	Frequency	Findings
End-of-Course (Student)	End of each course	13 questions — longer than needed; does not include the accreditor's required key questions
Faculty	End of each course	Substantially overlaps the student survey; purpose and distinct question set need to be clarified
Employee Satisfaction	Currently every semester	Frequency is more than needed at UMF's current size; results have not yet been used to drive institutional action
Graduate	Per graduate	Sent to date, in need of a defined distribution timeline
Employer	Per graduate	No employment-verification step precedes distribution
Alumni	Per graduate	Question set overlaps the Graduate survey; differentiation needs to be defined

Findings to Correct Surveys must be voluntary and anonymous (current administration is not anonymous); every survey must include the accreditor's three required key questions and a defined performance benchmark; and survey coverage should expand beyond course/instructor topics to include admissions, financial services, and career services.

4.3

Start-Date & Institutional History

Discrepancy identified between reported and documented first-enrollment date

UMF's currently reported first-enrollment date does not match the academic calendar published in the institution's original catalog; the date on file needs to be reconciled against the catalog, enrollment agreements, and prior accreditor submissions before it is repeated in the self-study.
The institution operated under a different name (Academy) before approval to operate as a university was granted. This name history must be documented in the self-study's institutional chronology / history section.

Action Required Confirm the correct first-enrollment date from source records (catalog academic calendar, enrollment agreements) and ensure it is stated consistently everywhere it appears, including any correction owed to the prior accreditor.

4.4

Direct Measures: Retention, Graduation Rate & Maximum Time Frame

MTF benchmark introduced; enrollment-load policy flagged for review

Dr. Matos introduced Maximum Time Frame (MTF) — program credit hours × 1.5 — as the key benchmark accreditors use to evaluate whether students are completing programs within an acceptable window.
Graduate full-time status is defined at 9 credit hours per semester. UMF's current policy limits students to two courses (6 credit hours) per semester, which means no student is currently enrolled at full-time status under that definition.
With three graduates to date (one MBA, two Computer Science), UMF does not yet have enough completed cohorts to calculate a multi-year graduation-rate benchmark, but should begin tracking toward it now.
The two-course-per-semester cap was flagged as worth revisiting from both a compliance (full-time status) and an operational (revenue) standpoint.

4.5

Graduation Certification Process

Current process walked through; formal audit checklist not yet in use

A student is currently declared a graduate once final grades post and the transcript is reviewed against completed coursework and grades.
A graduation-audit checklist exists but has not yet been put into active use for graduating student files.
There is currently no documented policy for (a) the turnaround time between course end and final grade posting, or (b) the timing for distributing the graduate, employer, and alumni surveys after a student is certified as a graduate.
Employer surveys are distributed without a prior employment-verification step.

4.6

Accreditor Pathway: DEAC vs. Middle States (MSCHE)

Continued evaluation — no final decision made at this meeting

Sal reported a prior meeting with Middle States leadership, in which Dr. Matos outlined the comparative advantages and disadvantages of each accreditor for an institution at UMF's current stage.
DEAC allows two years of operation before an institution must demonstrate a full assessment foundation, whereas Middle States uses a three-stage growth pathway (pre-applicant, candidacy, full membership) that allows an institution to be mentored while working toward full compliance over a longer window.
Dr. Matos noted this phased structure may be a better strategic fit for a growing institution such as UMF.
No final decision was made; UMF is weighing the path forward and expects to confirm direction in an upcoming session.

4 — Priority Focus Areas

01

Finalize Mission & Institutional Objectives

Required to complete the draft assessment plan and unblock the strategic-planning process.

Blocking

02

Reconcile Official First-Enrollment Date

Confirm the correct date from source records and correct it everywhere it is stated, including any prior accreditor submission.

Urgent

03

Redesign Institutional Surveys

Shorten, ensure anonymity and voluntariness, add the three required key questions and a benchmark, and expand coverage beyond course-level topics.

This Month

04

Implement the Graduation-Audit Checklist

Put the existing checklist into active use for every graduating student file, covering academic and financial clearance.

Before Next Cycle

05

Formalize Grade-Posting & Survey-Timing Policies

Document turnaround time for final grades and the timing for graduate/employer/alumni survey distribution.

Before Next Cycle

06

Confirm Accreditation Pathway

Finalize the decision between continuing with DEAC or transitioning to Middle States.

In Progress

5 — Action Items

#	Owner	Action Item	Deadline
1	Dr. Avis	Finalize the revised institutional mission and objectives and return to Dr. Matos to complete the assessment plan.	This Week
2	Dr. Avis	Build out Appendix A of the assessment plan — the assessment-cycle schedule.	This Month
3	Dr. Matos	Share the accreditor's three required survey questions and the applicable performance benchmark with UMF.	This Week
4	Dr. Avis + Sal Ismail	Redesign the student, faculty, graduate, employer, and alumni surveys — shorter, anonymous, with the required key questions and expanded to cover all institutional services.	This Month
5	Sal Ismail	Confirm UMF's correct official first-enrollment date from source records (catalog, enrollment agreements) and reconcile it across all documentation.	Urgent
6	Sal Ismail	Document the institution's name history (Academy → University) in the self-study's institutional chronology section.	This Month
7	Sal Ismail + Dr. Avis	Implement the graduation-audit checklist for all graduating student files going forward.	Before Next Cycle
8	Sal Ismail	Establish a formal policy for faculty grade-submission turnaround and the timing of graduate/employer/alumni survey distribution.	Before Next Cycle
9	Sal Ismail	Establish an employment-verification step ahead of employer survey distribution.	Before Next Cycle
10	Sal Ismail	Finalize the decision on accreditation pathway (DEAC vs. Middle States) with Dr. Matos.	In Progress

6 — Next Steps

1

Dr. Avis returns the finalized mission and objectives to Dr. Matos to complete the assessment plan.

2

Dr. Matos shares the required survey questions and benchmark; UMF begins the survey redesign.

3

Sal confirms the correct first-enrollment date and circulates the corrected record to the team.

4

Team reconvenes to review the updated surveys, the assessment plan draft, and the accreditation-pathway decision.

Target Milestone

Complete assessment plan and survey redesign to support the strategic plan and finalized accreditation-pathway decision.