Transcript Higher Education Accreditation: An Overview and Observations

Higher Education
Accreditation: An
Overview and Observations
David Werner
Visiting Researcher
Local Human Resources and Public Policy System,
Open Research Center (LORC), Ryukoku University
Today’s Presentation: Five Topics
Brief description of my experience with
accreditation
Overview of Accreditation in the USA
Current issues in accreditation in the USA
Issues in starting a new accrediting agency
Comments on educational program for training
local government officials and leaders of NPOs
David Werner
BS Industrial Engineering, Saint Louis
University
MS Industrial Engineering, Northwestern
University
Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Northwestern
University
Chancellor Emeritus and Research Professor
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
Academic Experience:
36 Years at SIUE
Faculty Member, 1968-1975
Dean, School of Business, 1975-1987
Provost, 1987-1997
Chancellor, 1997-2004
Accreditation Experience
 Academic Administrator
 Accreditor
 Work with National
Associations of Accreditors
 Research on Accreditation
Accreditation Experience as an
Administrator
 North Central






Association, Higher
Learning Commission
AACSB—Business
ADA—Dental Medicine
NCATE—Education
NLNAC—Nursing
CSWE—Social Work
NASPAA—Public
Administration
 ABET—Engineering
 ACCE—Construction
 NASM—Music
 CoA-NA—Nurse
Anesthesia
 ASHA/CAA—Speech
Pathology
 ACPE—Pharmacy
Experience as an Accreditor
 AACSB—Business:
1977—1987
 ADA—Dental Medicine:
1998—2001
 APA—Clinical Psychology:
2002—present
 NCA--Regional Accreditor:
1983—2004
Experience with Associations of
Accreditors
ASPA: Association of Specialized and Professional
Accreditors
Board Member, 1996--2002
Board Chair, 1998—2001
ASPA: Profile
-Advocates Good Accreditation Practices
-48 Members
-Conducts Professional Development
-Advocate for Specialized Accreditation
-Provides Services to Members
Experience with Associations of
Accreditors
CHEA: Council for Higher Education
Accreditation
Members: Universities and Colleges
Panelists for National Meetings
Published My Paper on Accreditation
Site Visits, 2002
Purpose of Accreditation
Mechanism for quality assurance
-to the public
-to prospective students
-to parents
Process for continuous improvement
Philosophy of Accreditation
Non-governmental
Voluntary
Peer review
Structure: Three Types of Accreditors
Regional Accreditors: Accredit Entire Institution
-Six Regions
-Similar to the JUAA
National Accreditors:
-Six recognized National Accreditors
Specialized Accreditors: Accredit Programs
-About 60 Specialized Accreditors
-Accreditation in “professional” fields
Who “Accredits” the Accreditors?
 National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and Integrity
 Council for Higher Education
Accreditation
 Potential: ASPA
National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and Integrity
 Unit of Federal Government
“Recognizes” Accreditors
Five year review cycle
Recognition provides
-status to the agency
-makes students eligible for Federal
Financial Aid
Makes accreditation “semi-voluntary”
Council for Higher Education
Accreditation
 Not-for-Profit Organization
 Universities and colleges are members
 Recognition provides status and
legitimacy
 No connection between CHEA
recognition and financial aid
Brief History of Accreditation in USA
 First regional accrediting agency in 1885
 First accreditation action: 1910
 First specialized accrediting agency in
1907—medicine
 Accrediting agencies added in response to:
-growth of higher education
-development of new fields of study
-response to professions
 Accreditation and accrediting agencies
change continually
Accreditation Not the Only Means of
Quality Control
 Internal Program Review
 Public Universities Review by State
Government
 Review by System Administration
Current Issues in Accreditation
 Focus of standards: Inputs, Processes,
Educational Outcomes
 Confidentiality
 Cost of accreditation
 Proliferation of Accrediting Agencies
Issue 1: What Focus of Standards?
INPUTS
PROCESSES
EDUCATION
OUTCOMES
Historical Focus: Inputs and Processes
 Inputs:
 Financial
Resources
 Number of Faculty,
 Faculty Qualifications
 Support Staff
 Quality of Students
 Library Resources
 Physical Facilities
Historical Focus: Inputs and Processes
Processes:
Graduation
Requirements
Curriculum
Academic
Policies
Student Policies
Student Services
Assumption of Focus on Inputs and
Processes
-If sufficient resources are in place,
students will learn.
-If appropriate polices are in place,
students will learn.
-Therefore, make accreditation
decisions based on inputs and
processes.
New Focus: Educational Outcomes
 What have students learned?
 What skills have students developed?
 Have graduates found jobs?
 What kinds of jobs?
 At what companies or institutions?
 How do graduates rate their educational
experience?
Why this new focus?
 Assumption underlying looking at inputs and
processes is not correct.
 Purpose of education is learning;
accreditation should focus on learning.
 Focus on inputs often misused to justify
adding resources to programs
Implication of new focus
 More difficult to measure educational
outcomes than inputs
 Institutions struggling to develop measures of
student learning
 Accreditors struggling to revise standards and
processes
 Faculty resistance to defining and measuring
educational outcomes
 Progress has been slow; some disciplines
better than others
Achieving a Balance: Inputs,
Processes, and Educational Outcomes
 Accreditation decisions need to be forward
looking
 Student outcomes tell how the program has
performed in past.
 Need to look at inputs and processes to
determine if educational outcomes will
continue
 Therefore, inputs, processes, and outputs
should all be reviewed
Issue 2: Confidentiality: Historic
 Only accreditation decision made
public:
 Accredited
 On
probation
 Not accredited
 Self-study, site visit reports, confidential
Confidentiality: Justification
Peer review requires honesty;
full disclosure
Without confidentiality,
institutions will withhold
information
Pressure to Release More Information
 Students and parents need to know
more to make informed decisions.
 Federal government wants
accreditors to be more accountable.
Issue 3: Cost of Accreditation
“Is accreditation worth the cost?”
 Direct costs:




Membership dues
Preparation of selfstudy documents
Site visit expenses
Travel, phone calls
 Indirect costs:

Compliance with
standards:
 Faculty
 Library
 Required courses
 Laboratories
Cost of Alternatives to
Accreditation
Greater Government Control
Loss of Volunteer Labor
Issue 4: Growth of Accrediting
Agencies
 About 60 specialized accrediting agencies
 Some presidents want to restrict emergence
of new agencies
 Some want accreditation limited to fields
involving health and public safety
 Pressures from new professions
Issues to be addressed in starting a
specialized Accrediting Agency
 What will be the organizational structure of
the agency?
 What relationship will the agency have to the
profession?
 How will the agency be funded?
 What will be the scope of accreditation?
 Who will apply the standards to make
accreditation decisions?
 How will the decision makers be selected?
 On what will accreditation standards focus?
What will be the organizational
structure?
An independent, not-for-profit agency?
Advantage:
Independence
Disadvantage: Totally responsible for
resources
Part of a larger organization?
Advantage:
Often source of financial
support
Disadvantage:
Responsible to others
Lack of independence
USA Examples
Independent not-for-profit:

Pharmacy (ACPE)

Business (AACSB)

Collegiate Nursing (ACNE)
USA Examples
Part of larger organization:

Dental (CDA/ADA)

Psychology (CoA/APA)

Law (ABA)
What will be the relationship between the
agency and the profession?
 USA Example


Engineering (ABET)
Sponsored by 30
engineering and
technical societies
 Japan Example:


Engineering
(JABEE)
Sponsored by:
 18 lead societies
 90 regular
societies
 59 supporting
corporations
How will the agency be funded?
 Sources of funds:
 Dues
of accredited programs
 Fees for site visits
 Support from external
agencies/companies
 Support from “parent”
organization
What will be the “scope” of
accreditation?
Bachelor Degrees
Master Degrees
Doctoral Degrees
Post-Doctoral Programs
Continuing Education
USA Examples:
 Psychology:
 Accredits specific
programs
 Doctoral Programs in
Clinical Psychology
 Internship Programs
linked to Doctoral
Programs
 Post-Doctoral
Programs
 Business:
 Accredits the entire
School of Business
 Bachelor Degrees
 Master Degrees
 Doctoral Degrees
Who will set standards and make
accreditation decisions?
 Committee or Commission on Accreditation
 Typical Members:





Persons heading accredited programs
Practicing professionals
Student representatives
Academics from other fields
Representatives of the general public
How will the decision makers be
chosen?
Some alternatives:
Selected by the Commission itself
Appointed by sponsoring agencies
Combination of both methods
USA Example: Psychology
21 Members of the Committee on Accreditation
 Appointed by APA:



2 Representatives of General Public
2 Psychologists in Independent Practice
2 Psychologists in Institutional Practice
 Appointed by external groups


1 Student
14 Psychologists
On what will the Standards focus?
Inputs
Processes
Educational Outcomes
Training Local Government Officials
and Leaders for NPOs
In US, separate programs for:
Business
Education
Government
Health Care
New programs emerging for NPOs
Linked with MPA programs
Accredited as part of MPA program
Training of Local Officials and
Leaders of NPOs
Local officials and NPO leaders have much in
common
Need to work together
Need to understand each other
Ability to move from local government to NPO
Conclusion
Accreditation is Complex
Appropriate structure and processes depends
on:

culture of the society

culture of the profession
Accreditors working together
 Much to learn from each other
 ASPA and CRAC as examples
Thank you!
Questions are welcomed