The US Model and Experience

Transcription

1 The US Model and Experience Reviews Policy Seminar December 2014 Barbara Brittingham Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, NEASC

2 Topics Who are we? Outlining the current approach to external review of higher education institutions The impact of reviewing higher education institutions with a for-profit purpose Developing and changing policy in relation to external review

3 Who are we? Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, NEASC A membership organization. Private, independent organization, the tax status of a charity. Recognized by the US Department of Education as a reliable authority on the quality of education A gatekeeper to federal financial aid to students

4 The two purposes of accreditation Foster improvement Assure quality A public and a private function. 4

5 The Regions of Regional Accreditation

6 Range and Variety in Institutional Mission A Sample of Public, Independent, and for-profit Institutions Harvard University Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute University of New England Berklee College of Music Hartford Seminary University of New Hampshire New England Institute of Art Community College of Vermont Williams College Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts Boston Architectural College Vermont Law School Naval War College Hult International Business School Maine Maritime Academy Rhode Island College Johnson & Wales University American University in Bulgaria Capital Community College Conway School of Landscape Design Bard College at Simon s Rock: The Early College

7

8 Becoming Accredited: Steps along the way 1. Licensed by the state great variety 2. Determined eligible: Walks like a duck 3. Gains candidacy: Eligible + operating OK + Integrity + five years 4. Initial accreditation: maximum 5 years Lots of interaction early in the process.

9 Three types of for-profit institutions 1 Publicly-traded 2 Investor-owned 3 Mom and Pop

10 Substantive Change: Expanding the scope of what s accredited Degree level: higher or lower Locations: domestic and international Delivery modes Change of control/mergers/acquisitions Dual, joint, concurrent degrees with others Contracts involving courses and programs Change of mission Expand scope of offerings

11 Substantive Change Proposal reviewed before change If approved, may have limitations Often a visit to assess implementation Review criteria: Credible proposal Planning Capacity Risk assessment

12 Teach-out Plans and Teach-Out Agreements Closing a location where a full program is offered Possible institutional closure Cut off of federal financial aid Possible accreditation termination Possible revoking of state license Interests: Students education not unduly disrupted Students not pay more Records kept appropriately

13 Change of Ownership or Control Substantive Change Who is the new owner? What are the plans? Understand and accept Commission requirements Program of Special Monitoring Policy to bundle and name follow-up Developed with help of good actors Gives Commission flexibility.

14 Program of Special Monitoring, continued Prior approval for change of name, location, mission Prior approval of new instructional location or distance learning programs or new programs outside current scope. Prior notification of involvement of any non-title IV entity in recruitment, admissions, curriculum, etc. Elimination of programs with 20%+ of students

15 Program of Special Monitoring, continued Report and visit within six months Annual data forms on enrollment and student success; institutional audit Comprehensive evaluation within 3 years Report (and visit) after each substantive change Filings with SEC, state agencies, other accreditors, etc. Bond or guarantee in case of closure: 6 months plus participate in teach-out

16 Considerations in review of for-profits* Sufficient independence from the parent Parent may lack experience with traditional higher education Sufficiently strong board Quarterly reporting of publicly traded *Which may also apply to other institutions

17 Developing and changing policy Membership and federal requirements Accountability and transparency Student learning outcomes and student success Changes in higher education: Competency-based education Partnerships and parents Role of the faculty Importance of the governing board Impact of technology Better data

18 18

19 19