1 / 50

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

idalee
Download Presentation

Higher Education Accreditation: An Overview and Observations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Higher Education Accreditation: An Overview and Observations David Werner Visiting Researcher Local Human Resources and Public Policy System, Open Research Center (LORC), Ryukoku University

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Academic Experience: 36 Years at SIUE Faculty Member, 1968-1975 Dean, School of Business, 1975-1987 Provost, 1987-1997 Chancellor, 1997-2004

  5. Accreditation Experience • Academic Administrator • Accreditor • Work with National Associations of Accreditors • Research on Accreditation

  6. 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 Accreditation Experience as an Administrator

  7. Experience as an Accreditor • AACSB—Business: 1977—1987 • ADA—Dental Medicine: 1998—2001 • APA—Clinical Psychology: 2002—present • NCA--Regional Accreditor: 1983—2004

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. Purpose of Accreditation Mechanism for quality assurance -to the public -to prospective students -to parents Process for continuous improvement

  11. Philosophy of Accreditation Non-governmental Voluntary Peer review

  12. 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

  13. Who “Accredits” the Accreditors? • National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity • Council for Higher Education Accreditation • Potential: ASPA

  14. 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”

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. Accreditation Not the Only Means of Quality Control • Internal Program Review • Public Universities Review by State Government • Review by System Administration

  18. Current Issues in Accreditation • Focus of standards: Inputs, Processes, Educational Outcomes • Confidentiality • Cost of accreditation • Proliferation of Accrediting Agencies

  19. Issue 1: What Focus of Standards? EDUCATION OUTCOMES INPUTS PROCESSES

  20. Historical Focus: Inputs and Processes • Inputs: • Financial Resources • Number of Faculty, • Faculty Qualifications • Support Staff • Quality of Students • Library Resources • Physical Facilities

  21. Historical Focus: Inputs and Processes • Processes: • Graduation Requirements • Curriculum • Academic Policies • Student Policies • Student Services

  22. 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.

  23. 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?

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. Issue 2: Confidentiality: Historic • Only accreditation decision made public: • Accredited • On probation • Not accredited • Self-study, site visit reports, confidential

  28. Confidentiality: Justification • Peer review requires honesty; full disclosure • Without confidentiality, institutions will withhold information

  29. Pressure to Release More Information • Students and parents need to know more to make informed decisions. • Federal government wants accreditors to be more accountable.

  30. 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 Issue 3: Cost of Accreditation“Is accreditation worth the cost?”

  31. Cost of Alternatives to Accreditation • Greater Government Control • Loss of Volunteer Labor

  32. 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

  33. 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?

  34. What will be the organizational structure? An independent, not-for-profit agency? Advantage: Independence Disadvantage: Totally responsible for resources

  35. Part of a larger organization? Advantage: Often source of financial support Disadvantage: Responsible to others Lack of independence

  36. USA Examples Independent not-for-profit: • Pharmacy (ACPE) • Business (AACSB) • Collegiate Nursing (ACNE)

  37. USA Examples Part of larger organization: • Dental (CDA/ADA) • Psychology (CoA/APA) • Law (ABA)

  38. 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 What will be the relationship between the agency and the profession?

  39. 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

  40. What will be the “scope” of accreditation? • Bachelor Degrees • Master Degrees • Doctoral Degrees • Post-Doctoral Programs • Continuing Education

  41. 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 USA Examples:

  42. 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

  43. How will the decision makers be chosen? Some alternatives: Selected by the Commission itself Appointed by sponsoring agencies Combination of both methods

  44. 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

  45. On what will the Standards focus? Inputs Processes Educational Outcomes

  46. 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

  47. 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

  48. Conclusion Accreditation is Complex Appropriate structure and processes depends on: • culture of the society • culture of the profession

  49. Accreditors working together • Much to learn from each other • ASPA and CRAC as examples

  50. Thank you! Questions are welcomed

More Related