Criteria for Accreditation

Making a Difference in Higher Learning

Regional Accrediting Bodies

Voluntary, non-governmental, regional accrediting organizations

Mission Statement

The Higher Learning Commission of NCAThe 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

To assess the quality of an institution and its effectiveness

To assist the institution in making improvements in its operations and effectiveness

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

PurposesResources

Educational & Other

PurposesEffectiveness Integrity

From Current to New Criteria

Current Criteria

The Commission offers two programsfor achieving continuedcontinued accreditation.

Program to Evaluate & Advance Quality

AQIP

Process and TimelineProcess and Timeline

Fall 2001Fall 2001

Iterative process for new criteria launched; focus on involvement; including 1st input mailing (3-prong approach).

Fall/Winter 01-02Fall/Winter 01-02

Focus group drafts new criteria; feedback sought from all institutions & other stakeholders; study groups begin.

2002 - 20032002 - 2003

Two sets regional workshops; multiple feedback mailings on two drafts; study and focus groups provide critique

February 2003February 2003

Board adopts new Criteria.

Implemented - Spring 2005

New Criteria & programNew Criteria & programeffective for alleffective for allJanuary 2005.January 2005.

Many piloting in 2004.Many piloting in 2004.

Fundamental ShiftsFundamental Shifts

…from inputs and resources to results, outcomes, performance.…from inputs and resources to results, outcomes, performance.…from teaching to teaching and learning, intended broadly for students & employees…from teaching to teaching and learning, intended broadly for students & employees…from looking backwards to a future focus…from looking backwards to a future focus

…from autonomy to connection and interdependence…from autonomy to connection and interdependence…from uniformity to distinctiveness, flexibility, and differentiation…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 TitleCriterion Title

Core ComponentsCore Components Make possible a fuller

understanding of criterion Each must be reviewed to constitute thorough

evaluation Serve with Criteria as guide for team evaluation

Examples of EvidenceExamples of Evidence Illustrative, possibilities, not all-inclusive

Define depth & breadthof each Core Component

Criterion StatementCriterion StatementNecessary Attributes

Mission & IntegrityMission & 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 & IntegrityMission & Integrity

The organization’s mission documents are clear and articulate publicly the organization’s commitments.

In its mission documents, the organization recognizes the diversity of its learners, other constituencies, and the greater society it serves.

Mission & IntegrityMission & Integrity

Understanding of and support for the mission pervade the organization.

The organization’s governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership and support collaborative processes that enable the organization to fulfill its mission.

Mission & IntegrityMission & Integrity

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 FuturePreparing 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 FuturePreparing for the Future

The organization realistically prepares for a future shaped by multiple societal and economic trends.

The organization’s resource base supports its educational programs and its plans for maintaining and strengthening their quality in the future.

Preparing for the FuturePreparing for the Future

The organization’s ongoing evaluation and assessment processes provide reliable evidence of institutional effectiveness that clearly informs strategies for continuous improvement.

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 &Student Learning &Effective TeachingEffective Teaching

The organization provides evidence of student learning and teaching

effectiveness that demonstrates it is fulfilling its educational mission.

Student Learning &Student Learning &Effective TeachingEffective Teaching

The organization’s goals for student learning outcomes are clearly stated for each educational program and make effective assessment possible.

The organization values and supports effective teaching

Student Learning &Student Learning &Effective TeachingEffective Teaching

The organization creates effective learning environments.

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, &Acquisition, Discovery, &Application of KnowledgeApplication 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, &Acquisition, Discovery, &Application of KnowledgeApplication of Knowledge

The organization demonstrates, through the actions of its board, administrators, students, faculty, and staff, that it values a life of learning.

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, &Acquisition, Discovery, &Application of KnowledgeApplication of Knowledge

The organization assesses the usefulness of its curricula to students who will live and work in a global, diverse, and technological society.

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 & ServiceEngagement & Service

As called for by its mission, the organization identifies its constituencies

and serves them in ways both value.

Engagement & ServiceEngagement & Service

The organization learns from the constituencies it serves and analyzes its capacity to serve their needs and expectations.

The organization has the capacity and the commitment to engage with its identified constituencies and communities.

Engagement & ServiceEngagement & Service

The organization demonstrates its responsiveness to those constituencies that depend on it for service.

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

versustraditional 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

UnderstandingStudents’and other

Stakeholders’Needs

Planning ContinuousImprovement

AccomplishingOther Distinctive

Objectives

Leading andCommunicating

ValuingPeople

HelpingStudents Learn

SupportingInstitutional Operations

Building CollaborativeRelationships

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 cycle 4 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

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