Accountability, Transparency and Institutional Responsibility: Addressing the Challenges A Dialogue

1
Accountability, Transparency and Institutional
ResponsibilityAddressing the Challenges A
Dialogue AmongMiddle States Institutions

• Middle StatesCommission on Higher Education
• 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia PA
  19104www.msche.org ? info_at_msche.org

2

• Peter Burnham Commission Chair
• President, Brookdale Community College
• pburnham_at_brookdalecc.edu
• Jean Avnet Morse Commission President
• jmorse_at_msche.org
• Elizabeth H. Sibolski Executive Vice President
• esibolski_at_msche.org

3
Purpose of This Meeting

• Challenges Facing Voluntary Accreditation
• Update on MSCHE Response to Challenges
• Accountability Action and Outcomes vs. Planning
  to Assess
• Self-Study
• Strategic Plan
• Revision of Characteristics
• Clarification of MSCHE Actions
• Your Feedback
• QA

4
Current Issues

• Addressing public need for information about
  student achievement/standardized tests (Yes/No?)
• Role of major higher education associations
  C-RAC (VSA and association statements)
• Government initiatives
• Recent changes in accreditation
• What institutions need from accreditors

5
The Call for Accountability Transparency

• Reasons for continuing current public interest
• Why it wont go away!
• Preserving academic independence in the face of a
  desire for further regulation in the higher
  education community
• Initiatives that can/must be taken by
  institutions
• Initiatives that can/must be taken by accreditors

6
MSCHE Mission

• The Triple Mission
• Supporter of members meeting expectations of
  Characteristics of Excellence
• Quality Assurance resourcefor the public
• Gatekeeper for federal funding

7
MSCHE Strategic Planning Self-Study

• Self-Study will be complete in 2009 and planning
  is on-going.
• Major Issues/Areas of Self-Study Strategic Plan
• Promoting excellence through rigorousstandards
  strategies and processes
• Ensuring consistency and fairness in
  accreditation decisions
• Improved systems of volunteers

8
Major Issues/Areas contd

• Focusing on institutional needs and public
  accountability Communication/Communication
• Regional meetings
• Working with accreditors, associations, and
  governments on a continuing basis
• Improving routine communications with members
• Improving/creating necessary accrediting
  infrastructure
• Including staffing and technology

9
MSCHE Standards for Accreditation

• Current standards adopted in 2002 and implemented
  in 2003-04.
• What has changed and what we have learned.
• Assessment
• Planning
• Finance
• Current standards require integration and
  developing a culture of evidence.

10
Accreditation Decisions2004-05 to 2006-07

• Nearly 50 of institutions reviewed required
  follow-up actions
• More Warnings Probations than in prior years
• Significant Increase in Substantive Changes
• Are We (Institutions and MSCHE) getting it?
  (Why? Why not?)

11
Preparing for anMSCHE Review

• Study and understand Characteristics of
  Excellence
• Ensure that mission and goals are measurable.
• Engage faculty, staff trustees in understanding
  accreditation process.
• Assessment plan must be in action, not
  planning to plan.
• Ratchet up IR function for data gathering

12
Preparing for Review contd

• Identify and empower an institutional assessment
  office and officer.
• Ensure that faculty document learning goals,
  measures, and results for all curricula
• At course, program/department, and institutional
  levels
• In a form that students and the public can
  understand
• Showing evidence of rigor and of students who
  meet the goals
• Report use of results for improvement in the
  self-study

13
Preparing for Review contd

• Review institutional assessment instruments.
• Illustrate relationships among
• Mission
• Institutional planning and resource allocation
• Assessment
• Revision of plans

14
What are your Questions from the Institutional
Perspective?

• Suggestions
• What barriers exist to successful application of
  accreditation standards?
• What can MSCHE do to assist members?
• Can/should Peer Review survive in this new era
  of public accountability?

15
Questions contd

• Should common standards and/or instruments
  (tests) for regional accreditors be created by
• Federal government?
• Higher education associations?
• Should common standards extend to specific
  learning goals and/or levels of achievement for
  each institution?

16
Never before has regional accreditation faced
such an important need to work collectively and
collegially to ensure accountability to our
students, our publics and ourselves. The only
way this will be achieved is through membership
collaboration and institutional adherence to our
standards. (Peter Burnham, Chair, MSCHE)