1. ACCREDITATION ISSUES
Presented By
Claudette H. Williams

2. Background to Accreditation
“Accreditation was invented by higher education in the 19th century, with professionals from colleges and universities seeking to clarify the boundaries and role of colleges and universities and concerned about student mobility through transfer of credit. “Accreditation” emerged as a review of higher education institutions and programs to assure and improve academic quality. “Assuring quality” is about affirming threshold effectiveness of colleges and universities; “improving quality” is about affirming that performance improves over time. To this day, accreditation remains owned, operated and funded by higher education. Accreditation is intended to be a collegial, formative, aspirational and trust-based activity among faculty, administrators, students, boards and the public, bringing out the best in higher education and part of moving colleges and universities forward.”
CHEA Board Members Guide to Accreditation– May 2016

3. Some Accreditation Issues at AURAK
Not knowing accreditation standards
Not knowing the extent to which responses should be developed and supported in order to demonstrate compliance
Lack of broad-based understanding or acceptance of the part institutional effectiveness plays in ensuring compliance across standards
Not demonstrating the use of research data/pertinent literature/ benchmarks in the institutional effectiveness process
Not taking ownership for institutional systems designed to ensure compliance

4. Knowing accreditation standards….
Provide baseline quality assurance requirements
Give directions for responding to a particular requirement
Provide guidance on appropriate and adequate responses to the requirement
Give insight into what is needed to demonstrate compliance with a requirement
Where rationale for a standard is provided, it gives additional information to help the institution understand the purpose for the standard and its place in the wider picture of compliance and quality assurance.
IT IS REQUIRED TO KNOW ACCREDITATION STANDARDS, especially those which relate to the performance of your duties and responsibilities.

5. Not knowing the extent to which responses should be developed and supported in order to demonstrate compliance
Demonstrating compliance differs from one accrediting agency to another. It is not a “one size fits all” system. Therefore it is necessary to become familiar with acceptable compliance responses.
Whenever an accrediting agency issues a recommendation or a written request for additional information, it is an indication that what was submitted by the institution for review was inadequate and/or inappropriate to demonstrate compliance. Avoid the need to resubmit responses.
Make your case for compliance the first time round as you may not have the opportunity to resubmit a follow up response.

6. Lack of broad-based understanding or acceptance of the part institutional effectiveness plays in ensuring compliance across standards
According to SACSCOC, institutional effectiveness is ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that (1) incorporate a systematic review of institutional mission, goals, and outcomes; (2) result in continuing improvement in institutional quality; and (3) demonstrate the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission.
Acceptance of this definition will be evident when individuals willingly participate in and apply the process, and address each element of the definition when executing their duties and responsibilities.

7. Not demonstrating the use of research data/pertinent literature/ benchmarks in the institutional effectiveness process
Using relevant internally and externally generated research data, pertinent literature, and information gleaned from the review of acceptable higher education principles, practices and guidelines increase knowledge and help to broaden the scope of understanding and application of information to improve quality.
Reviewers bring this scope of understanding and application of information into the evaluation process; consequently, when institutions fail to demonstrate acceptable quality practices, reviewers question the extent to which the institution is truly engaged in an educational process that results in improvement.

8. Not taking ownership for institutional systems designed to ensure compliance
Not liking or agreeing with a system is not unusual even when you may have participated in developing the system. Once the decision is made to accept a system and the system meets the requirements of the accrediting agency, it is in the best interest of the institution to accept and support the system to the best of your ability.
After the accreditation review period is completed, and the institution has time to evaluate and use findings for improvement, the institution may revamp or remove the current system to better meet its needs.
NB. A new system should be implemented when the institution has time to demonstrate before its next review that the system works. This will take a minimum of one complete cycle of implementation and being able to respond to the question on the extent to which outcomes have been met, and the use of findings for improvement based on the outcomes.

9. Best Wishes for Success on the Accreditation Journey
Thank You