Accrediting/ Benchmarking ACEJMC
The Institutions Accrediting/Benchmarking ACEJMC ACEJMC Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications AAFCS American Association of Family & Consumer Sciences Council for Accreditation ALA American Library Association, Office for Accreditation ACEN Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing ACPE Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education AACSB The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business ABET Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology ACBSP Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs
An Overview of Various Processes 1. Selection of Site Teams All match programs and reviewer attributes based on areas of specialization (ACEJMC: advertising, broadcast etc.; AACSB: Accounting, etc.), as well as mission of program, other relevant Jits and availability of prospective team members on scheduled visit dates. 2. Structure/Sequencing ACEJMC has a four- step process: preparation and submission of self- study; site visit; national committee; Council, which makes Jinal decision. Nursing also has a four- step process; the others basically have three- step processes (no intermediate body), but some have a more laborious process before the self- study is ofjicially submitted. For example, at least one requires clearing drafts of the self- study through a Council- appointed panel before ultimate submission.
3. Site- team member selections All pretty much the same, with the institutions being reviewed having some veto power over tentatively assigned team members, most notably for conjlicts of interest. 4. Posting of data/information on accredited programs Virtually all the agencies reported posting relatively minimal and basic information about member institutions. Several post graduation and retention rates; others also report enrollments and degree programs offered; some post student- faculty ratios, number of full- and part- time faculty members; where appropriate, some post passing rates on national licensing exams; at least one body posts faculty and administrator salaries; and one body posts simply a list of its accredited programs.
Most Pressing Challenges Mentioned by Respondents Consistency in evaluations and recommendations from site teams. Pushing/reminding units to post aggregated student achievement/graduation data. Converting submission of documents from paper to electronic. InsufJicient budgets to conduct more virtual and on- site training for potential reviewers. Expanding footprints of ofjices internationally (AACSB, for example, accredits programs in 51 countries).
Most Pressing Challenges Mentioned (continued) Continuing to better understand and convey the value of specialized accreditation. Continuing to develop well qualijied site- team members. Finding sufjicient number of mid- career professionals to serve as site- team and committee members. Unique challenge noted by Pharmacy association of keeping pace with the visit volume while always including an ACPE staff member on each site visit to enhance consistency across all site- review teams. Pharmacy currently has two full- time staff members devoted to serving on site teams.
Some Takeaways Preparation of a thorough self- study is the heart of the process for all associations, with each having meaningful and rigorous requirements. One can cherry pick where some associations do not require as much of X but, invariably, that association likely requires more of Y. ACEJMC is the only body, as near as I could discern, that has a stand- alone diversity standard. Despite occasional criticism concerning the mysteries of ACEJMC processes, decisions and procedures, the reality is otherwise. ACEJMC is the only association of those surveyed whose meetings when school accreditation decisions are discussed are open to the public. Only Nursing has the equivalent of a national committee and, like ACEJMC, uses it effectively. Still, the three- step process (with no national Committee) preparation and submission of a self- study, site visit, and Jinal council action often is layered in other ways by other bodies.
Some Takeaways (continued) ACEJMC has less central ofjice overhead than most, it not all, associations, particularly given the number of accredited programs it serves. ABET, for example, has 29 full- time staff members, including 6 in Jinance and operations, 3 in communications and marketing, and 2 in constituent relations. ACEJMC has, by far, the largest Council, with 31 members. ACEJMC s standards clearly are in the ballpark in regard to information required in the self- study with other specialized accrediting bodies. Specialized bodies, of course, are charged with focusing on comprehensive overview assessments that inherently involve the detailed breadth and depth of a unit (faculty and staff, programs, curriculum, student services, advising, research, public service, administration, budget, assessment, etc.) while regional bodies (such as North Central) in comparison, focus on overarching dimensions of a university, such as assessment or sustainability strategies.
Some Takeaways (continued) The layers of work in the ACEJMC process, its procedures and practices are in line with other bodies and probably not as onerous as some. ABET the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology has four commissions, with ETAC (Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission) being responsible for accreditation visits to universities. ETAC evaluates the engineering- technology- computer science programs on a given campus. At Penn State, for example, 18 programs are accredited in the College of Engineering on the University Park campus (Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Biomedical Engineering, etc.), along with an additional six engineering- technology programs in the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. So at the main campus of Penn State, 24 programs are accredited by ABET.
Some Takeaways (continued) **And the process is time consuming. The College of Engineering begins preparing its self- study about one year in advance of the scheduled site visit. Each of the 18 programs being reviewed appoints a self- study coordinator who spends, on average, 10 to 15 hours a week on the self- study during the 52 or so weeks leading up to the site visit. Of course, dozens of other faculty and staff members also are involved. **The site team is composed of 18 members one for each of the programs within the College being reviewed. They include a combination of representatives from the various professional Engineering Societies, from academia and from government. Occasionally, the teams also have on them trainees, who are preparing themselves to be members of teams in the future.
Some Takeaways (continued) ABET, like ACEJMC and virtually all specialized accrediting bodies, adheres to a tight, rigid process: 1. The institution requests a review 2. The institution spends about a year preparing a self- study 3. A site- visit team is assigned 4. The institution submits a self- study to ABET headquarters and is assigned a team chair 5. The team conducts a site visit 6. The team submits a Jinal report to ABET after the university has a chance to respond to it 7. The Jinal report enters the editing process 8. The team chair presents Jindings to the appropriate executive committee for a Jinal decision; meetings are closed 9. The institution is notijied of the results
Despite the range of associations surveyed, the challenges that face ACEJMC are not unlike the most pressing issues noted by respondents of several other bodies. The Bottom Line The specialized accrediting process regardless of the Jield is designed to be demanding and arduous. I ve always believed that, if one can focus on the benejit of going through an accreditation review, it can more than make up for all the work, expense and sometimes frustration. Robert Pangborn, vice president and dean of undergraduate education, Penn State University, who is a former associate dean in the College of Engineering and veteran of the regional and specialized accrediting processes
Quick Glance at Survey Results When Standards Were Revised in 2012 There were 110 ACEJMC- accredited programs in 2012. All 110 were invited to participate in the anonymous, online survey. The participation rate was 61 percent. Survey Highlights: 83% were from public institutions. 52% said their institution had an equal balance of teaching- research- service. Some 40% said teaching was their primary mission. 97% were on semester systems. Some 3% offered an online undergraduate degree although 13% planned to do so in the future. 40% offered a professional master s program and 45% of those were currently accredited. 59% offered an academic master s program. 41% agreed or strongly agreed that ACEJMC should be involved in the accreditation of professional master s programs. Only 8% disagreed but 51% were neutral.
Quick Glance (Continued) Responses were all over the map on whether the six- year review cycle should remain six years; 37% disagreed; 48% agreed; 15% were neutral. 70% agreed (31% strongly) that the Jinancial investment of accreditation was worth the return; 20% were neutral; only 11% disagreed. 62% agreed (29% strongly) that the investment of time and faculty in the accreditation process was worth the return; 23% were neutral; only 15% disagreed. Credit hours required for graduation ranged from 113 upwards for schools on the semester system (which constitute 97% of them). About half required 120 credits by far the most common number. For the number of credit hours required in the major: Virtually all were in the 30-40 range.
About the Standards, as Perceived by Administrator Respondents During the Standards Review Process of 2012 Good as is Needs minor changes Needs major changes 1. Mission, Governance and Admin. " 86% " 9% " 5%" 2. Curriculum and Instruction " " 32% " 28% " 40%" 3. Diversity and Inclusiveness " " 48% " 26% " 26%" 4. Full- and Part-Time Faculty " " 73% " 22% " 5%" 5. Scholarship: Research, etc. " " 68% " 26% " 6%" 6. Student Services " " " 95% " 3% " 2%" 7. Resources: Facilities, Equipment " 83% " 14% " 3%" 8. Professional and Public Service " 78% " 16% " 6% " " 9. Assessment " " " 51% " 29% " 20%"
Administratorsʼ assessment of the validity, relevancy and reliability of the nine accrediting standards!!! 2013-2014* 2014-2015** 2015-2016 15 of 20 Responded 8 of 15 Responded 19 of 25 Responded Strongly Total Strongly Total Strongly Total Agree Agree Favorable Agree Agree Favorable Agree Agree Favorable St. 1: 20% 73% 93% 25% 75% 100% 21% 79% 100% St. 2: 20% 73% 93% 12% 88% 100% 10% 84% 94% St. 3: 33% 53% 86% 25% 75% 100% 26% 68% 94% St. 4: 40% 53% 93% 12% 88% 100% 31% 63% 94% St. 5: 20% 66% 86% 25% 75% 100% 53% 47% 100% St. 6: 33% 60% 93% 25% 75% 100% 32% 68% 100% St. 7: 40% 53% 93% 63% 37% 100% 32% 68% 100% St. 8: 40% 53% 93% 37% 63% 100% 47% 53% 100% St. 9: 60% 33% 93% 25% 75% 100% 26% 74% 100% * Site visits in 2013-14 were still under the 80-65 credit hour rule. ** 13 administrators inadvertently were not sent an evaluation
!!! Administratorsʼ assessment of the accreditation process 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 15 of 20 Responded 8 of 15 Responded** 19 of 25 Responded Strongly Total Strongly Total Strongly Total Agree Agree Favorable Agree Agree Favorable Agree Agree Favorable Self-Study 33% 60% 93% 25% 62.5% 87.5% 33% 63% 96% Process Site Visit 33% 60% 93% 37.5% 50% 87.5% 26% 68% 94% Process Meetings 26% 60% 86% 37.5% 25% 62.5%* 37% 47% 84% and Decision Process * 12.5% disagreed; 25% had no opinion ** 13 of the 28 administrators inadvertently were not sent an evaluation
2015-16 Site Team Demographics 100 individuals served as site team members during this review cycle. Site Teams 2015-16 FEMALES 47 % MALES 53 % Males Females 32 PROFESSIONALS 32 % Academics Professionals ACADEMICS 68 % 68 15 OF COLOR 15 % White WHITE 85 % Non-white 85