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. 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

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? INPUTS PROCESSES EDUCATION OUTCOMES

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. 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

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. 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

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. 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

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