It doesn’t go into details, but from reading the article and the PDF’s, what the accrediting commission is worried about is process related. This is the equivalent to when departments are audited in corporations, and the auditors find things that they feel violate corporate standards, and are looking for the university in this case to address the issues and how they plan on correcting it.
Basically, what they are saying is not that CIM offers a bad education, but rather than the processes they have don’t allow for change or for improving what they have.
-They don’t feel their is a review process for the people managing the place, in terms of how they communicate, how they set a vision for the future, how they review academic standards
-Lack of standards for academic achievement across the degree programs and set evaluation standards for faculty,teachers and curricula
-Issues with how they are handling finances, specifically in lack of endowment backing scholarships and such (basically, they are saying that Cleveland offers a lot of financial aid, but doesn’t seem to have the financial plan to pay for it. Usually, that means they may be drawing down from the endowment to pay for scholarships and aid, and not getting it from return on endowment).
-Not reviewing standards on a regular basis and reviewing them vis a vis what is required to educate the students, what is required going forward.
It was careful to say that they didn’t think CIM was necessarily out of compliance or was otherwise not educating students properly, it is basically pointing out process and administrative issues that could cause the school to fall out of compliance.
I suspect there are some other issues here, there were some problems with faculty/student interactions that are pretty well known that I suspect might be behind some of this as well.
They basically have a year to address these issues to show they are in compliance, then the auditors from the sanctioning body will revisit the school and see if they have addressed the issues. To be honest, I suspect unless Smirnoff and the board are complete idiots, they will address this, while conservatories are a bit different than standard colleges, that accreditation could hurt them (people already think conservatories are academically lightweight, as false as that is).
Is it something to be concerned about? I would be more worried about whether the school is a fit for the student, whether there is a teacher that can drive him/her forward, and so forth, while this obviously could be a concern if for example CIM was in deep financial trouble, from reading the report it sounds more like this is more a criticism of the way things are done at the school rather than of the school’s education and such.