Higher Education Accreditation: An Overview and Observations

David WernerVisiting 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--2002Board 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 PROCESSESEDUCATION

OUTCOMES

Historical Focus: Inputs and Processes

Inputs: Financial ResourcesNumber of Faculty, Faculty QualificationsSupport StaffQuality of StudentsLibrary ResourcesPhysical Facilities

Historical Focus: Inputs and Processes

Processes: Graduation RequirementsCurriculumAcademic PoliciesStudent PoliciesStudent 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 self- study 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 programsFees for site visitsSupport from external

agencies/companiesSupport from “parent”

organization

What will be the “scope” of accreditation?

Bachelor DegreesMaster DegreesDoctoral DegreesPost-Doctoral ProgramsContinuing 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 ComplexAppropriate 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