Quality Assurance Experiences

1. Quality Assurance Experiences Barbara Brittingham, Director Commission on Institutions of Higher Education New England Association of Schools and Colleges bbrittingham@neasc.org Voice: +1 781-271-0022, ext. 347 http://www.neasc.org

2. Presentation Overview • Introduction • Perspective from the United States – including current debates • International Principles followed in Egypt • Lessons Learned in Quality Assurance

3. Part I Introduction • Being present at a launch • Your international expertise Council on Higher Education: http://www.chea.org

4. INQAAHE Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Botswana, Canada, Chile, China, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, New Zealand, Nigeria Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Namibia, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The Netherlands, Trinidad and Tobago, UAE, United Kingdom, USA, Vietnam

5. Part II Accreditation in the U.S. • Regional Accreditation • National Accreditation: vocational, religious, and distance-learning-based institutions • Profession and specialized accreditation: programs within institutions (e.g., law, medicine, teacher education) and some free-standing institutions (e.g., art, seminaries) Council on Higher Education: http://www.chea.org

6. Northwest Middle States North Central Western Southern Regional Accreditation New England

7. American Regional Accreditation • Traces its beginnings to 1885 • Accredits entire institution • Is a non-governmental agency • Serves as a membership organization • Is based on self-regulation • Carried out as peer review system • Relies on participation and candor

8. What are the basics of accreditation? Based on a set of standards for universities or faculty: • Self study report by the university or faculty – • How and how well do we meet the standards? • What are our priorities for improvement? • Visit by a team of peer experts – and report • Decision by a commission of peers and the public Institutional mission is important

9. What are the Standards? An articulation by the higher education community of what a college or university must do in order to deserve the public trust. A framework for institutional development and self-evaluation.

10. Variety in Institutional Mission A Sample of Public and Independent Institutions Harvard University Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute Urban College Berklee College of Music Hartford Seminary University of New Hampshire York County Community College Amherst College Massachusetts College of Art Vermont Law School Boston Architectural Center New England Institute of Art Naval War College Hult International Business School Maine Maritime Academy Simon’s Rock College of Bard Johnson & Wales University American University in Bulgaria Conway School of Landscape Design

11. Accreditation = Standards + Mission Standards of higher education community Mission of the institution + evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence

12. What is the issue? What is the problem? Quality, value and improvement of education • Quality: Whose definition? • How does society ensure value for: • Having an engine of improvement • Government • Students/families • Employers

13. U.S. Features that Help Define Accreditation • Historical: Private institutions first • Political: U.S. federal system and the Constitution • Strong tradition of voluntary associations • Higher education is not really a system • Decentralized • Large • Diverse • Serves a mobile society • Porous – and forgiving “Let a thousand flowers bloom.”

14. Accreditation fulfills 2 functions • Quality assurance: • Does the institution deserve the public trust? • Quality improvement: • The accreditation process helps the institution become better

15. Benefits of the Process • Standards: as a framework • Self-study: self-knowledge, participation • Promotes habits of planning and review, relying on evidence • Requires focus on mission • Looks at inputs, processes, outcomes • Regularity of review • Feedback from respected peers

16. Voluntary: Elective on the part of institutions With incentives Public confidence Federal financial aid Government grants Philanthropic grants Transfer credits Higher degree International student visas College guides Employer tuition reimbursement Athletic conferences Institutions must be licensed by the state.

17. Spellings Commission Report* Undergraduate students have changed • 40% in community colleges • 1/3 older than 24 • 40% enrolled part-time • >50% attend more than two or more institutions before graduating *Secretary of Education – No Ministry

18. What’s the Basic Issue? 1. Degrees have become more important • More (good) jobs require degrees • $31,000 - $50,000 = $2.1 million • Other countries are (getting) ahead 2. Cost of education has gone up • Price increase faster than inflation • Many loans = high student debt

19. Problems identified • Access – and need for remediation • Cost and affordability • Financial aid – complex system • Learning the skills employers value • Transparency and accountability – information and “value added” • Innovation – especially math, science, technology

20. Recommendations: Accountability • Consumer-friendly searchable database to compare institutions • Better information on cost and quality = unit record system • Institutions measure and report student learning*. Accreditation should make this the “core of their assessment.” *In the skills employers value

21. Concerns • Changes in accreditation will harm a good system • Push for standardization will mean “one size fits all” • Government databases will threaten individual privacy and institutional autonomy. • Institutions will be judged – and funded? – on inappropriate or simple measures Note the concern over change!

22. Part III International Principles in Egypt • Tailor the system to the country • Learn from what others have done • Look at institutions and programs • Design the system to gain value Leads to Lessons Learned

23. Part IV Lessons Learned in Quality Assurance • Change understanding – don’t just teach the technicalities

24. Lessons Learned in Quality Assurance • Change understanding – don’t just teach the technicalities • Implement the change in stages

25. Lessons Learned in Quality Assurance • Change understanding – don’t just teach the technicalities • Implement the change in stages • Institutional diversity is a strength

26. Lessons Learned in Quality Assurance • Change understanding – don’t just teach the technicalities • Implement the change in stages • Institutional diversity is a strength • Internal evaluation must precede external evaluation

27. Lessons Learned in Quality Assurance • Change understanding – don’t just teach the technicalities • Implement the change in stages • Institutional diversity is a strength • Internal evaluation must precede external evaluation • Institutional planning is necessary for evaluation.

28. Lessons Learned in Quality Assurance • Change understanding – don’t just teach the technicalities • Implement the change in stages • Institutional diversity is a strength • Internal evaluation must precede external evaluation • Institutional planning is necessary for evaluation. • Begin now with student learning in mind

29. Lessons Learned, continued • Balance international standards with local conditions and aspirations

30. Lessons Learned, continued • Balance international standards with local conditions and aspirations • Participation is vital: all regulation is self-regulation

31. Lessons Learned, continued • Balance international standards with local conditions and aspirations • Participation is vital: all regulation is self-regulation • Institutional capacity is important.

32. Lessons Learned, continued • Balance international standards with local conditions and aspirations • Participation is vital: all regulation is self-regulation • Institutional capacity is important. • Candor is important – and the people in charge need to provide a “safe space”

33. Lessons Learned, continued • Balance international standards with local conditions and aspirations • Participation is vital: all regulation is self-regulation • Institutional capacity is important. • Candor is important – and the people in charge need to provide a “safe space” • CASE: “Copy and steal everything”

34. Lessons Learned, continued • Balance international standards with local conditions and aspirations • Participation is vital: all regulation is self-regulation • Institutional capacity is important. • Candor is important – and the people in charge need to provide a “safe space” • CASE: “Copy and steal everything” • Take on what you know are the important problems in the system – this requires courage.

35. Conclusion • Congratulations • Let us hear from you – let us learn from you