News from the Council for Higher Education Accreditation-Summer 2021
Serving Higher Education and the Public
Members of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) know who we are, but do you know what CHEA does? CHEA serves higher education members, the accreditation community and the public by its execution of the following functions:
- Validates through recognition processes sound and effective higher education accrediting bodies;
- Conducts and coordinates research that informs and advances accreditation and quality assurance;
- Serves as a national advocate to government, media and the public for higher education quality through accreditation and voluntary peer review;
- Collects and disseminates data and information about accreditation through a biennial public almanac;
- Fosters communication between and among accrediting bodies and the higher education community; and
- Works to preserve the quality and diversity of colleges and universities.
CHEA President Cynthia Jackson-Hammond states that "Knowing about CHEA's important work helps member colleges and universities fully access the many services that are available. Furthermore, the voice of member institutions is strengthened as CHEA speaks on accreditation-related issues."
More information about CHEA is available on the CHEA website at https://www.chea.org/about-chea. You also can contact CHEA at [email protected] if you have specific questions for us.
Accreditation Views
Each issue of Accreditation Central features articles by leaders with a higher education institution and a CHEA-recognized institutional or programmatic accrediting organization, offering commentary on a range of accreditation-related issues.
Institutional Benefits of Programmatic Accreditation
Jean A. Wyld, Ph.D.
Member, CHEA Board of Directors
Retired Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
Springfield College
Presidents and other institutional leaders may be more familiar with institutional accreditation than programmatic accreditation. While institutional accreditation is needed for access to Title IV funds, programmatic accreditation is one of the best ways an institution can enhance both the quality and reputation of its academic programs. Since students and families seek quality assurance in specific fields of study, successful programmatic accreditation can enhance an institution’s ability to recruit the brightest and best students to its programs.
In selecting a program accreditor an institution will find that partnering with a CHEA-recognized accreditor and/or a member of the Association of Specialized and Programmatic Accreditors (ASPA) provides added benefits. These accreditors must meet rigorous standards that ensure due process and transparency in their reviews. CHEA-recognized organizations have national standards developed by professionals in the discipline, make clear distinctions between requirements and recommendations, and use processes and procedures that respect institutional mission and context. Their focus on student learning ensures that such reviews are designed to enhance student success.
Programmatic accreditation remains the gold standard for quality assurance related to undergraduate and graduate programs nationwide. When done correctly such reviews do take significant faculty time and energy. However, when done with the support of institutional leaders, these reviews provide program faculty with a valuable opportunity for creative thinking that can lead to program improvement and innovation. Institutional leaders who support such efforts may achieve outcomes that are valuable to both the institution and its students.
Institutional Support for Accredited Programs
Jan M. Winn
Executive Director
Joint Review Committee on Educational Programs in Nuclear Medicine Technology (JRCNMT)
Although accreditation standards vary for different professions and disciplines, all programmatic accreditors evaluate the institutional support of the program under review. A variety of support methods are expected; this article focuses upon institutional support of program assessment.
Programmatic accreditors evaluate how a program assesses student learning, overall program effectiveness, and the outcomes of these assessments. Establishing, monitoring, and revising robust assessment systems can be challenging for faculty typically engaged for their expertise in the program’s subject matter.
It is crucial that the institution facilitates program director development of assessment proficiency. Programmatic accreditors encounter several situations indicating lack of assessment support:
An institutional office of assessment (or similar) may not exist, or its purpose is solely for institutional level assessment. In the current outcomes-driven environment, all institutions could benefit by having experts in assessment available to the directors of accredited programs.
A program director may be unaware of available assessment resources. A structured faculty development program could introduce these resources and experts to new hires.
A program director may fail to take advantage of assessment resources. This situation often leads to poor assessment processes, resulting in a negative accreditation review. Institutional leadership could implement practices requiring program directors to routinely meet with assessment staff. Even a director experienced with assessment can benefit from input on the assessment mechanics in use and the outcomes obtained.
Strong institutional support for program assessment is a win-win for programs, the institution, and ultimately the most important beneficiary – students.
The Joint Review Committee on Educational Programs in Nuclear Medicine Technology (JRCNMT) is a programmatic accrediting organization that focuses on ensuring, through accreditation, the quality of nuclear medicine educational programs offering certificate, associate or baccalaureate degrees at higher education institutions throughout the United States.
Government Affairs
The Council for Higher Education Accreditation has been closely following higher education-related activities at the U.S. Department of Education (USDE), particularly those with an impact on accredited colleges and universities.
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity Meets
The National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) – the advisory body that provides recommendations to the Secretary of Education on recognition of accrediting organizations – met virtually in July to consider the renewal of recognition for a number of accreditors. Additionally, NACIQI discussed policy considerations in a number of areas, generally pointing toward an expanded role for NACIQI in matters of USDE accreditation policies.
As part of this meeting, NACIQI heard an Administration policy update from Julie Margetta Morgan, Acting Under Secretary of Education. She urged that higher education be reimagined, talked about the goals of the Biden Administration and urged that NACIQI have a policy role in addition to its role in recognition recommendations. Her recommendations reflect the policy direction of USDE during the Obama Administration. NACIQI also heard a presentation on the Accreditor Dashboards that underscored for the Committee that the data included is only for Title IV institutions, mostly for undergraduates and first-time full-time students. This clearly does not represent the enrollment profile for many institutions today.
NACIQI’s policy discussion included an expanded role for the Committee advising the Secretary on post-secondary education; more transparency by making more accreditation documents available to the public sooner (prior to the end of the NACIQI comment period); having the authority to comment on new rules prior to them taking affect and having the authority to propose new rules; the ability to bring in outside, unvetted information about institutions and accreditors into recognition reviews; and the authority to set standards for accreditors and for USDE and the authority to propose new rules including new student achievement standards.
It was also suggested during the meeting that accreditors be required to monitor items such as compliance with the 90/10 rule, wages after graduation, loan repayment rates and federal loan volume per school and for-profit to non-profit conversions. Accreditors are not set-up to review these items without significant additional information gathering and reporting by institutions. Many of these proposed expansions of NACIQI authority would go beyond current law and regulation, requiring either new legislation or additional rulemakings.
New Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Announced
On August 6, 2021, the U.S. Department of Education announced that it will establish a negotiated rulemaking committee that will meet virtually beginning in October to rewrite regulations for Public Service Loan forgiveness, income-contingent repayment plans and borrower defense to repayment, among other issues. These regulations will help borrowers manage repayment or receive a discharge or forgiveness of their federal student loans. To review the agenda and to nominate individuals to be members of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, please use the link above.
In making the announcement, USDE noted significant public interest in a range of other regulatory topics, including accreditation, accountability and consumer protection. USDE says that these topics may be considered later by a separate rulemaking committee.
CHEA Meetings and Webinars
2021 CHEA Summer Roundtable Draws More Than 400 Registrants
The 2021 CHEA Summer Roundtable, held virtually on June 17, attracted more than 400 registrants from across the United States and internationally. Participation at the Roundtable was open only to CHEA member institutions, CIQG members and CHEA-recognized accrediting organizations.
The Roundtable – which in the past was designed primarily for presidents and chancellors – was broadened this year to provide sessions of interest and value to others at member institutions including provosts, chief academic officers, government affairs personnel and faculty who actively participate in the institutional or programmatic accreditation process.
Sessions at the Roundtable addressed topics including:
- An update on U.S. Department of Education’s (USDE) policy agenda for higher education and accreditation from Michelle Asha Cooper, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education Programs.
- Understanding and valuing quality assurance and accountability for college and university leadership.
- Developing an institutional culture of continuous improvement and quality.
- The role of government affairs officers in interpreting USDE and Congressional activity and/or proposals related to accreditation.
- Steps to preparing for programmatic accreditation – before, during and after the visit.
- Boards of governance and institutionalizing quality through thoughtful leadership selection.
- The “weakest link(s)” in self-study and achieving accreditation.
- Leadership for quality and equity (perspectives from Lumina Foundation).
The Roundtable concluded with a joint session where attendees from each of the day’s sessions provided their thoughts and takeaways from the session.
“This was a day characterized by rich discussions, information-sharing and ideas exchange,” said CHEA President Cynthia Jackson-Hammond. “We thank all of the presenters at the Roundtable, as well as the attendees for their active participation. This was an interactive event that truly demonstrated CHEA’s role as a thought-leader and convener on topics related to accreditation and quality. We are already looking forward to planning for next year’s Roundtable!”
Save the Date!
The 2022 CHEA Annual Conference and CHEA International Quality Group (CIQG) Annual Meeting will take place in Washington, DC on January 24-27. Look for program registration information to be emailed to you from CHEA in the next few weeks. It’s a week of full of information, conversations and networking opportunities that you won’t want to miss!
The National Voice of Accreditation