An overview of accreditation in the U.S.A: foundations, achievements and challenges

Transcription

1 An overview of accreditation in the U.S.A: foundations, achievements and challenges Mary Ellen Petrisko President WASC Senior College and University Alameda, California, U.S.A.

2 Overview of presentation History of Accreditation in the US: Regional, National, Programmatic Relationship to federal government Centrality of peer evaluation Accreditation successes Current challenges Ideal system? 2

3 A brief history Who? First accreditor New England Association of Schools and Colleges When?: 1885 Why? To help ensure that the quality of accredited institutions was respected by institutions abroad How? Through a voluntary system of collaboration among member institutions 3

4 A brief history continued Currently seven regional accreditors, seven national accreditors, 64 recognized programmatic accreditors Regional: accreditation of the whole institution (e.g., UC Berkeley) this is what WSCUC does Programmatic: specialized focus on programs (e.g., law or engineering) what ABA, ABET etc. do National: accreditation of the whole institution but targeting specific types of institution (e.g., career, faith-based) what ACICS, etc. do 4

5 Regional Accreditation Agencies

6 REGIONAL ACCREDITATION Accreditation of the entire institution, not of its individual degree programs or schools (but assessment at this level is required) Peer review: Trained volunteer educators drawing conclusions about academic quality and institutional effectiveness Periodic self-study and reaffirmation (every 6, 8, or 10 years for WSCUC) Additional reporting, visits as needed 6

7 Strengths of Regional Accreditation Signal of quality By using agreed-upon standards and review processes, based on quality principles, it carries great credibility Opportunity for selfimprovement: Provides both quality assurance (QA) to the public and urges continuous quality improvement (CQI) to the institution Learning across institutions: Creation of a learning community among educators Alternative to government regulation: Avoiding the political interventions and government bureaucracies of a federal agency Transfer of Credits: Ease of transferring credits between institutions 7

8 Core Values/Benefits of Regional Accreditation Student success: Enabling students to succeed in reaching their educational goals through measures of educational effectiveness Institutional autonomy: Operating free from undue government intervention Institutional diversity: Supporting a vast array of institutional types and missions Academic freedom: Ensured by the institution for its faculty and students Shared governance: Faculty voice in matters of curriculum and research 8

9 ABOUT WSCUC Three Core Commitments: 1. Student Learning & Success 2. Quality & Improvement 3. Institutional Integrity, Sustainability, & Accountability WSCUC s Mission A regional accrediting agency serving a diverse membership of public and private higher education institutions throughout California, Hawaii, and the Pacific as well as a limited number of institutions outside the U.S. Through its work of peer review, based on standards agreed to by the membership, the encourages continuous institutional improvement and assures the membership and its constituencies, including the public, that accredited institutions are fulfilling their missions in service to their students and the public good. Recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as certifying institutional eligibility for federal funding in a number of programs, including student access to federal financial aid. 9

10 Standard 1: Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives Institutional Purpose Integrity and Transparency Standard 2: Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions Teaching and Learning Scholarship and Creative Activity Student Learning and Success 10

11 Standard 3: Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure Quality and Sustainability Faculty and Staff Fiscal, Physical, and Information Resources Organizational Structures and Decision-making Processes Standard 4: Creating an Organization Committed to Quality Assurance, Institutional Learning, and Improvement Quality Assurance Processes Institutional Learning and Improvement 11

12 Relationship to federal government No ministry of education in the U.S. (but a Department of Education) But large investment in education through aid to students and for research:$150b in student aid each year 1952: Accreditors given role of gatekeeping: governmental trust in professional peer evaluation Recognition by U.S. Department of Education 12

13 Relationship to federal government Increasingly challenging relationship 34 Code of Federal Regulations: Part 602 Secretary s Recognition of Accrediting Agencies Criteria for Recognition Organizational and Administrative Requirements Required Standards and Their Application Required Operating Policies and Procedures 13

14 Peer evaluation Volunteers review institutional self-study materials, reports, websites and visit institutions Initial accreditation Periodic reaffirmation Special visits Make recommendations to institution Make recommendations to the regarding actions 14

15 Peer evaluation WSCUC ers 29 volunteer members: college and university presidents, vice presidents, faculty, public members Nominated and voted on by the heads of member institutions Represent the region and the general public Meet three times a year 15

16 Accreditation successes Ease of student transfer across institutions Provision of access to federal funds Support for academic freedom Support for shared governance Limitation of role of government in higher education Ongoing quality improvement 16

17 Current external challenges to accreditation Dissatisfaction with higher education cost and results Dissatisfaction with regional system Accusations of stifling innovation Not tough enough/too tough Desire for risk-sensitive accreditation Desire for more transparency 17

18 A benefit and a challenge: creating and sustaining a culture of evidence Faculty buy-in regarding assessment of student learning Requirement for evidence-based decision making at all levels Need for institutional research capacity; asking good questions/culture of inquiry Collecting the right data Making meaning of the data Using the data in decision making, planning and quality assurance processes 18

19 An ideal system? Based on the values grounding higher education: what are those values in Kuwait? Based on expert evaluation: peer evaluators? People outside higher education? Based on the individual missions of accredited institutions: can evaluators assess on the institution s own terms, yet guided by standards valid for all? 19

20 An ideal system? Credible in terms of lack of conflict of interest Operating with respect for confidentiality/candor on the part of institutions yet making information available to those who need and want information on institutional quality Focused on outcomes: student learning and achievement of goals 20