Criteria for Accreditation Making a Difference in Higher Learning

Regional Accrediting Bodies n Voluntary, non- governmental, regional accrediting organizations

Mission Statement n The Higher Learning Commission of NCA n The Higher Learning Commission of NCA “ Serving the common good by assuring and advancing the quality of higher learning”

Higher education requirements: assure the public that enrolling is safe assure other organizations (businesses, etc.) that they can be trusted to do reliable work assure governments and other funders that they run their businesses effectively provide services that meet their students and other stakeholders’ needs continuously improve the quality of the services they provide

Quality Assurance For the U.S. Department of Education –Federal student aid grants and guaranteed loans For state regulatory or coordinating agencies –Administrative and educational confidence For businesses –Employees hiring and educational benefits For other higher education institutions –Credibility of credentials, transferability of credits For students, parents, families –Honesty, reliability, security

What we do not assure Value — Cost benefit ratio, efficiency, absence of waste Match between institution’s services and student’s specific needs Absence of fraud in all organizational activities

n To assess the quality of an institution and its effectiveness n To assist the institution in making improvements in its operations and effectiveness n To provide mission-driven, peer controlled accreditation Focus of Accreditation

Standard process sequence Institution performs self-study and prepares report Comprehensive team reads report and visits institution to conduct evaluation review Team sends institution report with recommendations and advice Commission processes review team recommendation and make accrediting decision

Multiple options for designing self-study Special emphasis Visit that includes specialized accrediting agency Visits with other regional accrediting agencies Sequential visits Significant Institutional Change Unique benefits and flexibility Requires clarity, leadership, commitment, communication, and collaboration Work closely with staff liaison Self-Study

Creating the Self-Study How do you create a self-evaluation process that makes a significant difference to your work and your institution? What forums do you have for raising important questions and holding meaningful conversations that make this difference possible? How might you connect such a transformative self- evaluation to the new criteria and the self-study process?

Evolving: Two sections (Assurance, Advancement) Assurance linked directly to evidence for meeting the Criteria and Core Components Institutions may request topics for team consultation in the Advancement Section Team Report

Mission Purposes Resources Educational & Other Purposes EffectivenessIntegrity From Current to New Criteria Current Criteria

The Commission offers two programs continued for achieving continued accreditation. Program to Evaluate & Advance Quality AQIP

Process and Timeline Fall 2001 Iterative process for new criteria launched; focus on involvement; including 1st input mailing (3- prong approach). Fall/Winter Focus group drafts new criteria; feedback sought from all institutions & other stakeholders; study groups begin Two sets regional workshops; multiple feedback mailings on two drafts; study and focus groups provide critique February 2003 Board adopts new Criteria. Implemented - Spring 2005

New Criteria & program effective for all January Many piloting in 2004.

Fundamental Shifts …from inputs and resources to results, outcomes, performance. …from teaching to teaching and learning, intended broadly for students & employees …from looking backwards to a future focus …from autonomy to connection and interdependence …from uniformity to distinctiveness, flexibility, and differentiation

Five Criteria Twenty-one Core Components Examples of Evidence Four Categories of Operational Indicators Program Pieces

Holistic Themes Learning-Focused Future-oriented Connected Distinctive

Preparing for the Future Student Learning & Effective Teaching Acquisition, Discovery, & Application of Knowledge Engagement & Service Mission & Integrity Mission & Integrity

Criterion Title Core Components Core Components u Make possible a fuller understanding of criterion u Each must be reviewed to constitute thorough evaluation u Serve with Criteria as guide for team evaluation Examples of Evidence u Illustrative, possibilities, not all-inclusive u Define depth & breadth of each Core Component Criterion Statement Necessary Attributes

Mission & Integrity The organization operates with integrity to ensure the fulfillment of its mission through structures and processes that involve the board, administration, faculty, staff, and students.

Mission & Integrity u The organization’s mission documents are clear and articulate publicly the organization’s commitments. u In its mission documents, the organization recognizes the diversity of its learners, other constituencies, and the greater society it serves.

Mission & Integrity u Understanding of and support for the mission pervade the organization. u The organization’s governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership and support collaborative processes that enable the organization to fulfill its mission.

Mission & Integrity u The organization upholds and protects its integrity.

Preparing for the Future Student Learning & Effective Teaching Acquisition, Discovery, & Application of Knowledge Engagement & Service Mission & Integrity Mission & Integrity

Preparing for the Future The organization’s allocation of resources and its processes for evaluation and planning demonstrate its capacity to fulfill its mission, improve the quality of its education, and respond to future challenges and opportunities.

Preparing for the Future u The organization realistically prepares for a future shaped by multiple societal and economic trends. u The organization’s resource base supports its educational programs and its plans for maintaining and strengthening their quality in the future.

Preparing for the Future u The organization’s ongoing evaluation and assessment processes provide reliable evidence of institutional effectiveness that clearly informs strategies for continuous improvement. u All levels of planning align with the organization’s mission, thereby enhancing its capacity to fulfill that mission.

Preparing for the Future Student Learning & Effective Teaching Acquisition, Discovery, & Application of Knowledge Engagement & Service Mission & Integrity Mission & Integrity

Student Learning & Effective Teaching The organization provides evidence of student learning and teaching effectiveness that demonstrates it is fulfilling its educational mission.

Student Learning & Effective Teaching u The organization’s goals for student learning outcomes are clearly stated for each educational program and make effective assessment possible. u The organization values and supports effective teaching

Student Learning & Effective Teaching u The organization creates effective learning environments. u The organization’s learning resources support student learning and effective teaching.

Preparing for the Future Student Learning & Effective Teaching Acquisition, Discovery, & Application of Knowledge Engagement & Service Mission & Integrity Mission & Integrity

Acquisition, Discovery, & Application of Knowledge The organization promotes a life of learning for its faculty, administration, staff, and students by fostering and supporting inquiry, creativity, practice, and social responsibility in ways consistent with its mission.

Acquisition, Discovery, & Application of Knowledge u The organization demonstrates, through the actions of its board, administrators, students, faculty, and staff, that it values a life of learning. u The organization demonstrates that acquisition of a breadth of knowledge and skills and the exercise of intellectual inquiry are integral to its educational programs.

Acquisition, Discovery, & Application of Knowledge u The organization assesses the usefulness of its curricula to students who will live and work in a global, diverse, and technological society. u The organization provides support to ensure that faculty, students, and staff acquire, discover, and apply knowledge responsibly.

Preparing for the Future Student Learning & Effective Teaching Acquisition, Discovery, & Application of Knowledge Engagement & Service Mission & Integrity Mission & Integrity

Engagement & Service As called for by its mission, the organization identifies its constituencies and serves them in ways both value.

Engagement & Service u The organization learns from the constituencies it serves and analyzes its capacity to serve their needs and expectations. u The organization has the capacity and the commitment to engage with its identified constituencies and communities.

Engagement & Service u The organization demonstrates its responsiveness to those constituencies that depend on it for service. u Internal and external constituencies value the services the organization provides.

Preparing for the Future Student Learning & Effective Teaching Acquisition, Discovery, & Application of Knowledge Engagement & Service Mission & Integrity Mission & Integrity

Three position statements FOR THE COMMISSION: Assessment of Student Learning, Diversity, General Education Statements are not policy Statements provide background, explain the premises for Commission policies and why elements and emphases occur in the criteria Position Statements

Data as part of an ongoing conversation Annual collection process Four categories of data (demographics, programs, financial strength, scope of activities) Annual collection process Ultimately provides trend data for self- evaluation and self-comparison Annual Institutional Data Update: Operational Indicators

Academic Quality Improvement Program versus traditional accreditation Similarities and Differences

Normal standard process sequence Institution performs self-study and prepares report Comprehensive team reads report and visits institution to conduct evaluation review Team sends institution report with recommendations and advice Commission processes review team recommendation and make accrediting decision

Sequence for AQIP process Institution attends Strategy Forum and commits to Action Projects, annually updated Institution prepares and makes public its Systems Portfolio AQIP team reviews portfolio and provides actionable feedback report

The criteria provide lenses for examining groups of related processes The criteria promote a non-prescriptive dialogue about how an institution determines and achieves its goals Each criterion inquires into processes (approach & deployment), results, and improvement Academic Quality Improvement Criteria

Each AQIP Criterion asks: How stable, well-designed, and robust are your systems and processes? How consistently do you deploy and employ your systems and processes? How satisfying and good are the results your systems and processes achieve? How do you use your performance data to drive improvement?

Measuring Effectiveness Understanding Students’ and other Stakeholders’ Needs Planning Continuous Improvement Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives Leading and Communicating Valuing People Helping Students Learn Supporting Institutional Operations Building Collaborative Relationships

Overall, the AQIP questions ask: Are you doing the right things — the things that are most important in order to achieve your institution’s goals? Are you doing things well — effectively, efficiently, in ways that truly satisfy the needs of those you serve?

Sequence for AQIP process Institution can request site visits on specific improvement issues If institutional progress toward improvement stops, AQIP moves institution back to standard process After seven years, AQIP reviews institutional record and recommends reaffirmation to Commission

Focus on proving institution meets expectations Focus on institution improving performance over time Available to all accredited and candidate institutions Open only to accredited institutions not on probation or sanction Institutions’ “peers” limited to those similar in control, scope, degrees, mission, size, etc. Institutions’ “peers” include all colleges and universities consciously pursuing continuous improvement Standard Accreditation (PEAQ) vs. AQIP

10 year review cycle4 year review cycle 5 broad Criteria under which institution provides patterns of evidence 9 Criteria ask specific questions about processes, results, and improvement cycles for critical institutional systems Team-identified concerns as drivers of change Institutionally-identified Action Projects drive change Standard Accreditation (PEAQ) vs. AQIP

Requires evidence that broad higher education expectations are met Requires evidence that institution is achieving its own goals Self-study Report created anew for each comprehensive evaluation Concise Systems Portfolio created once and then updated annually Basic Institutional Data is descriptive and must include trends within institution over past years Requires data comparing performance with own past, with peers and competitors, with “best practice” organizations Standard Accreditation (PEAQ) vs. AQIP

Self-study and site visit can constitute sole event in 10 year cycle Annual interaction with Commission during 4 year cycle Self-study and evaluation reports can be kept confidential Action Projects and Systems Portfolio are shared with public Institution not meeting minimum expectations placed on probation or loses accreditation Institution not making improvements returned to standard process Standard Accreditation (PEAQ) vs. AQIP

New institutions can use standard process Only already accredited institutions can use AQIP process Focused visits and monitoring reports on specific issues Action projects crafted to address specific issues All review activities are summative evaluations Formative activities clearly separated from summative evaluation

No differences Same dues Same annual report (with organizational indicators in future)

AQIP’s Processes Initial Interest Exploration and Self- Assessment Four-year cycle, consisting of Strategy Forum and Systems Appraisal Annual Update on Action Projects Small site visit “check-up” Formal Reaffirmation of Accreditation every seven years, based on pattern of successful participation and improvement

New Forms of Higher Education and the role of Quality Assurance

E-learning Drivers Improved access for students Institutions’ desire to expand High cost for establishing new campuses Institutions’ desire to recover technology investments Experimentation, innovation E-learning package providers

Best Practices For Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs 1. Institutional Context and Commitment 2. Curriculum and Instruction 3. Faculty Support 4. Student Support 5. Evaluation and Assessment

E-Learning Issues High investment expenses Aggressive marketing practices Integrity and potential for abuse Comparability of learning Competition Staffing practices Balance of convenience, cost, rigor, quality

New forms of organizations The Commission on Institutions of Higher Education The Higher Learning Commission

Organizational forms Public ownership (of stock), control by owners, taxed Public for- profit Privately owned and controlled, taxed Private for- profit Privately controlled, partially publicly funded (directly and indirectly), not taxed Private not- for-profit Governmentally controlled, publicly funded, not taxed Public

Ownership and Control Issues Academic decision-making Participation of academic staff in non- academic decisions Appropriate funding of academic programs Provision of student support services Staffing (appropriateness of qualifications, dependence on part-timers) Departures from or ignorance of academic traditions