Accreditation and the Assurance of Quality in Higher Education: Open Forum Jeff Rosen 3 December 2015
Topics for Today 1. Overview of accreditation: competing priorities 2. Disruptions affecting all institutions 3. The Criteria for Accreditation 4. The Open Pathway 5. Preparing for your review ( Writing to the Criteria 6. Recent responses to innovation: PLA; Dual Credit [Faculty Qualifications]; CBE.
1100 Institutions 19 States Associate s, Baccalaureate, and Graduate Degree- Granting Institutions Non-profit, Forprofit, public and private institutions Tribal Colleges, HBCs, Bible Colleges Regional Accreditation
The Regulatory Triad US Department of Education: National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity Federal Government Regional Accreditation State Government
Regulation vs. Accreditation: Competing Priorities Regula'on: Consumer Protec.on Title IV Viability Assurance Protect Against Fraud and other Abuses Collect / Publicize Student Success Data (Reten.on and Comple.on) Minimize Student Defaults Accredita'on: Quality Improvement Peer Review (Self- Regula.on) Program Integrity Student Outcomes Ins.tu.onal Credibility Capacity and Resources Student Experiences
Disruptions in Higher Education Correspondence Study Prior Learning Assessments (PLA credit) Online learning planorms (pedagogy and degree programs) Adult students (formerly non- tradi.onal learners ) High School Students taking dual- credit programs For- profit providers and third- party vendors Accelerated Learning Programs and Courses - - Compressed schedules and formats - - Altera.ons to the clock/credit hour regula.on Direct Assessment Competency Based Educa.on MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses)
The Completion Agenda Source: Georgetown Public Policy Institute, The College Advantage, 2012
Alternatives to Degrees & Certificates Badges, MOOCs, Nanodegrees
Expectations of All Institutions Adhere to the Criteria for Accredita.on by par.cipa.ng in Pathways and submiung to two Comprehensive Reviews within a 10- year cycle): hxp://www.hlcommission.org/ Uphold the Assumed Prac.ces Agree to the Obliga.ons of Affilia.on Comply with Federal Compliance Guidelines and USDOE Obliga.ons: Complete Applica.ons for New Programs; New Loca.ons; Distance Delivery; New Contracts and New Consor.a.
Criteria for Accreditation 1. Ins.tu.onal Mission: Ar.culates the individual culture of the ins.tu.on 2. Ethical and Responsible Conduct: Demonstrates the ins.tu.on possesses policies and procedures to preserve its integrity 3. Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources, and Support: Reflects the ins.tu.on s commitment to faculty, curricula, general educa.on, student learning 4. Teaching and Learning: Evalua.on and Improvement: Demonstrates responsibility for educa.on in terms of assessments, program reviews, reten.on, comple.on 5. Resources, Planning, Effec.veness: Examines how governance, leadership, strategic planning, and budget work to improve ins.tu.onal performance over.me.
How effectively has the Self Study Team assembled the right evidence to support the assurance argument? made available current financial and enrollment data, both raw data and trend analyses, to support the assurance argument? assembled reliable retention and completion data over time to support the institution s academic conclusions about teaching and learning and the faculty s role in improving the curriculum? provided evidence of student assessments over time, both in general education and in the major departments?
Common Elements to All Pathways Self-Analysis Evaluation Decision Process Institution participates in pathway Activities specific to pathway Peer Review specific to each Pathway Evaluation recommendations Institutional response Institutional Actions Council Evaluate report & take action Inform institution
Open Pathway: Eligible Institutions Accredited for at least 10 years No recent Change of Control No recent Commission sanction No extensive past or future monitoring No significant Commission concerns in areas such as leadership, student body, or review by governmental agency
Open Pathway: 10-year Cycle
Writing to the Criteria Produce a Criterion introduction Articulate how the Institution is meeting each Core Component within each Criterion, using appropriate evidence to support the Institution s argument Use embedded links to take readers directly to materials in the Evidence File Explain how the Institution has addressed any previously-identified concerns Produce a Criterion summary
Logistics: Preparing for a Review hlcommission.org/pathways/assurance-systemtraining.html
Recent Responses to Innovation 1. Prior Learning Assessments 2. Dual Credit / Concurrent Enrollment Case Study A: Master s education Case Study B: Doctoral education 3. Competency Based Education
Part 1: Prior Learning Assessment Core Component 4A.2. The institution evaluates all the credit it transcripts, including what it awards for experiential learning or other forms of prior learning. Assumed Practice A.5.d The institution makes readily available clear and complete information, including polices on acceptance of transfer credit, including how credit is applied to degree requirements. The institution makes no promises until credit has been evaluated. AP B.1.b Institutions maintain structures or practices that ensure the coherence and quality of the programs for which they award a degree (typically, a minimum of 15 of the 60 credits for an Associate s; 30 of 120 for a Bachelor s; all earned at the degreegranting institution itself. AP B.1.g The institution has a clear policy on the maximum allowable credit for prior learning as a reasonable proportion of the credits required to complete a degree; credits are documented, evaluated and appropriate for level of degree awarded.
Will PLA Innovations Undermine Quality? Will PLA credit gain new legitimacy under the pressure of the Completion Agenda? (ie: beyond the convention of <25% of total credits) What happens when commercial non-college providers begin dominating the PLA landscape? How do/will institutions transcribe PLA credit in terms of course equivalencies? (ie: there are no national norms or academic levels for portfolios) Will there continue to be limits imposed on the application of PLA credit to general education requirements or to degree programs?
Part 2: Concurrent Enrollment Core Component 3.A.3. - The institution s program quality and learning goals are consistent across all modes of delivery and all locations. CC 3.C.2. - All instructors are appropriately credentialed, including those in dual credit, contractual, and consortial programs. CC 4.A.4. - The institution maintains and exercises authority over the prerequisites for courses, rigor of courses, expectations for student learning, access to learning resources, and faculty qualifications for all its programs, including dual credit programs. It assures that its dual credit courses or programs for high school students are equivalent in learning outcomes and levels of achievement to its higher education curriculum.
Dual Credit in U.S. Higher Education: A Study of State Policies and Practices (2013) From 2002-03 to 2010-11, dual credit enrollments increased by 75% nationally The percentage of public high schools offering dual credit increased from 74% to 82% Benefits: Increased access; shortened time to degree and reduced cost; enhancing school curricula; improving community relations. Drawbacks: Lack of academic rigor; uncertainty of college level preparation; uncertainty of course transferability; inadequate instructor qualifications; inauthentic experience.
Commission Review of Concurrent Enrollment 1. Faculty credentials and qualifications, orientation, training, professional development. 2. Academic rigor of courses; curricular standards. 3. Expectations for student learning and for learning outcomes; assessment processes. 4. Access to equivalent learning resources. 5. Institutional monitoring, oversight, and transparency by chief academic officer.
Case Study A An institution wants to establish a Master s degree in Computer Science but has no faculty teaching at the institution who possess a Ph.D. in Computer Science. Rather, the faculty all possess Master s degrees and have what the dean calls substantive hands-on experience and real-world business experience in the profession sufficient to establish the degree.
Case Study B An institution that currently offers an Ed.D. program in Educational Leadership wants to elevate its program to the Ph.D., but of the thirteen (13) total faculty members, only four (4) have a Ph.D. The remaining nine (9) hold an Ed.D., and none of these faculty have guided research at the Ph.D. level and do not possess a record of scholarship. Five (5) of the nine members holding an Ed.D. have limited experience, having received their degrees from the same institution that is proposing to create this new Ph.D. program.
Part 3: CBE Programs Students proceed at their own pace: a. No tradi.onal courses with defined seat.me; b. Time to complete an assignment is elas.c and may extend beyond a tradi.onal academic term Students may take assessments at any.me Instead of courses, learning is broken into bits (modules, tasks, assignments) and is evaluated by competencies demonstrated (e.g, tests, tasks completed, pornolios, papers, projects) Students amass competencies toward a degree
Competency-Based Formats, Structure, Delivery, and Expectations Assessment drives the curriculum (eg., faculty first determine the tasks that students will perform to demonstrate mastery; then, a curriculum is developed that will enable students to perform those tasks. The acquisition of essential knowledge and skills is embedded in those tasks.) Curriculum is ordered and prescribed, tailored to job performance, and designed only for matriculating students (ie: there are no desultory enrollments) Curriculum is curated from public and open source materials, not driven by a faculty member No electives are desired (or possible); no peer contact Students cannot fail tasks they attempt
New Expectations: Dear Colleague letter 12/19/14 Need to assess the credit hour standard as a foundation for credit-hour equivalencies Need to Account for Expected Educational Activity (not less than one hour of classroom instruction and two hours of out of class work each week). Regular and Substantive Faculty-Student Interaction as a required part of the program Need to Account for Substantive Academic Progress (SAP): the institution must make a reasonable determination regarding the normal time to completion
Jeffrey H. Rosen, Ph.D. Vice President for Accreditation Relations and Director of the Open Pathway Higher Learning Commission 230 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 7-500 Chicago, IL 60604