6th Edition Standards: More Key Concepts from PAEA

In October 2025, my colleague Katherine A. Demedis, a Principal at Powers Pyles Sutter & Verville, PC, presented these key concepts regarding the revised Standards at the annual PAEA conference. I share these with her permission. We began her list last week, focusing on the changes in data that must be collected and presented to ARC-PA for your SSR. The data requirements have grown much more specific, while ARC-PA now provides numerous templates that dictate how the data is submitted.

Let’s now turn to the remainder of Katherine’s observations. Katherine’s points are bold and italicized.

For programs with upcoming reviews under the 6th Edition, the ARC-PA states that it recognizes the program may not have all the data required by the new SSR, and programs will not be penalized for this.

A program may not have previously gathered some of the new data required by the SSR’s templates within that framework. One example of this is the workload calculations, which will now be required.

The analysis questions for Standard C1.02 ask the program to analyze whether it has sufficient principal faculty and staff, including number, capacity, and workload, to operate the program and fulfill obligations to students. (In response to an audience question, the presenters specified that “capacity” captures the responsibilities that are not included within workload calculations, such as service on committees, and whether there are faculty and staff to cover for program faculty and staff when needed.)

The workload calculation will be an “unknown” until some of this data is reviewed. I plan to address this further in an upcoming blog.

For each question, the program selects a pre-written conclusion, either answering the question in the affirmative or negative. If the program answers the question in the negative, the program must develop action plan(s) to address the area needing improvement.

This is an interesting addition to the templates, which will change the way we present answers (and could be related to the new word-count limit).

Programs are no longer required to identify program strengths (or have strength benchmarks).

That is true, but I noticed that “strength benchmark” language is still in the 6th Edition Compliance manual. I’m not sure how strengths will be viewed at this point.

Here’s another point, which was raised in response to an audience question. ARC-PA noted that programs with applications due under the 5th Edition could request a 6th Edition application instead. However, Dr. Sharon Luke warned programs that they would have less time to prepare the application and would be required to sign a waiver.

I recommend against shifting to the 6th standards midstream. There are still many unknowns; you don't want to be the first ones evaluated under these new guidelines if you have a choice in the matter. Until there is some experience with how the commission will review this data, hold off.

Predictions

As I offer my predictions, I ask that you remember these are just my opinions, albeit based on my extensive experience. I don’t speak for ARC-PA.

1. The application template and data templates have simplified the process. Is it really that easy? I have my doubts, namely because there may be a rather steep learning curve. I can’t help but think of the 2020 5th Edition Standards, when many programs paid the price for the unclear expectations. I suspect there will be several bugs to work out, so I remain a bit skeptical about how smooth this transition will be.

2. Limiting programs to 1500 words in the analysis section might prove highly challenging, especially when considering all the iterations required within their descriptions! If anything, this is the point that concerns me most. Can we articulate everything needed for that number of words? You must provide a clear and logical framework connecting the data reviewed to the conclusions drawn in the action plan. I believe this will require a “lean and mean” approach, which will include a lot of writing and re-writing to ensure we’ve sufficiently responded.

3. The compliance manual still outlines similar expectations to those in the 5th Edition Standards. The triangulation requirements still exist. Determining the commission's expectations will take time through trial and error.

4. I believe that, overall, the 6th Edition Standards are better in terms of organization and clarity, making it easier to know what to expect. My cautionary note, however, is that I’ve been living this for many years, and I think we need to be cautious about letting our guard down. If you remember nothing else about what I’ve said, remember this: have your act together with ongoing data analysis.

I look forward to sharing more with you about the 6th Edition Standards as time passes and the answers become clearer.

Next time…

The holiday season is upon us once again. Where does the time go? Next week, we’ll take a moment to express our gratitude to the people who make our jobs exciting, validating, and impactful. And in blogs soon to come, we’ll take a closer look at some of the new issues introduced by ARC-PA’s 6th Edition Standards, including the concept of workload calculations, and perhaps even some pointers on dealing with a 1500-word limit on our responses. I’ll see you again soon!