Skip navigation

Background and History of the North Central Association Accreditation Process

(From: Dr. John Taylor, North Central Association)

Contents:

Higher Learning Commission (North Central Association)

  • A voluntary, non-governmental, regional accrediting, member-organization that evaluates institutional quality, and advances institutional improvement.
  • NCA- Founded in 1895.
  • Mission statement: “Serving the common good by assuring and advancing the quality of higher learning”.
  • NCA covers 19 states, with 1000+ institutions
  • PEAQ: “Program to Evaluate and Advance Quality!”
Back to Top

Themes of the Current Criteria

  • Mission and Integrity
  • Preparing for the Future
  • Student Learning and Effective Teaching
  • Acquisition, Discovery, and Application of Knowledge
  • Engagement and Service
Back to Top

Assessment: A Mandate or an Idea?

  • “Federally approved accreditation organizations will include in their criteria for accreditation evidence of institutional outcomes." (William Bennett, 1988)
  • Commission’s statement on institutional Effectiveness and Assessment- 1989: “Assessing student academic achievement is an essential component of evaluating overall institutional effectiveness.”
  • Aligning assessment with the criteria- 1991-92
    • Criterion #3-Accomplishing educational and other purposes
    • Criterion #4- Continuing to accomplish purposes and improve institutional effectiveness
  • The Commission’s efforts to effectuate more effective assessment programs
    • 2000-2003-Commission develops new re-accreditation program: Program to Evaluate and Advance Quality (PEAQ): fully implement by January, 2005
      • the components of PEAQ
        • The development and use of evaluation instruments for visits
        • Study of the move away from a ten year cycle and/or the use of different strategies for monitoring institutions between reaffirmations.
        • Experiments with different approaches in accreditation processes
        • The use of technology in supporting effective accreditation
        • The use of education and training programs to strengthen PEAQ
    • 2001- Commission collaborates with AAHE to sponsor assessment workshops
    • 1999- Staff begins study of team reports and develop implementation matrix
    • 1997- Commission begins intrusive follow-up (reports and focused visits)
    • 1996- Evaluation teams report on implementation process
    • 1995- Commission mandates all institutions to have approved assessment plans in place
    • 1993- Commission charges evaluation teams to review institution’s assessment plans and progress with implementation
    • 1991- Commission sponsor’s regional seminars to orient institutional personnel to assessment features
    • 1989- Commission mandates institutions to address assessment as a part of self-study
Back to Top

Assessment Tool: 3 x 4 Matrix

  Levels
Patterns   Beginning Implementation Making Progress Maturing Stages of Continuous Improvement
Institutional Culture, Mission, and Values      
Shared Responsibility: All Stakeholders      
Institutional Support: Structures and Resources      
Efficacy of Assessment: Use of Findings      
Back to Top

More Recent Calls for Greater Accountability- Since the Late ‘90’s

  • “Accountability in Higher Education”
  • “Can College Accreditation Live Up to Its Promises?”
  • “Public Accountability and Higher Education: Soul Mates or Strange Bedfellows?”
  • “Measuring Up 2000” (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education)
    • State by State Report Card for Higher Education
      • preparation
      • participation
      • affordability
      • completion
      • benefits
      • LEARNING?
Back to Top

Learning and Accountability: Outcomes or Time on Task?

  • Learning as a return on investments
    • tuition and fees
    • taxes
    • instructional services
    • facilities construction
    • equipment purchases
    • facilities maintenance
    • auxiliary services
    • student expectations
    • employer expectations
  • Paradigm Shift
    • emphasis on inputs, but more emphasis on learning outcomes!
  • Learning Paradigm vs. a Traditional Paradigm
    • Learning Paradigm
      • set of desired learning outcomes
      • curricula designed to achieve outcomes
      • active learning
      • continuous feedback through assessment
      • graduation as a demonstration of learning
    • Traditional Paradigm
      • programs designed as a collection of courses
      • passive learning
      • minimal feedback
      • minimal collaboration of faculty
      • silo-type organizational structures
  • Assessment is a part of learning: Tom Angelo
    • engage actively
    • identify expectations
    • focus interest
    • provide feedback
    • make connections
    • determine relevance
    • apply learning
    • interact with Instructors and other students
    • invest ample time
  • Over-Arching Learning Goals for College Students
    • To master a rigorous body of knowledge and related skills
    • To refine one’s ability to conceptualize, analyze, and integrate
    • To refine one’s use of intellect
    • To examine one’s values and understanding of value systems
    • To consider divergent views related to research and discovery
    • To engage other students and teachers in a free exchange of ideas and attitudes
  • New Strategies to Pair Learning and Assessment
    • Position Statement on Assessment (Exerpt-2003)
      • “ Assessment of student academic achievement is fundamental for all organizations that place student learning at the center of their educational endeavors.”
    • Position Statement on Assessment (Excerpt- 2003)
      • Assessment strategies should be informed by the organization’s mission, and include explicit public statements regarding the knowledge, skills, and competencies students should possess as a result of completing course and program requirements.
    • Position Statement on General Education (Excerpt)
      • Regardless of how a higher learning organization frames the general education necessary to fulfill its mission and goals, it clearly and publicly articulates the purposes, content, and intended learning outcomes of the general education it provides for its students.
Back to Top

New Criteria of Accreditation: PEAQ (fully implement in January, 2005)

  • Mission and Integrity
    • The organization operates with integrity to ensure the fulfillment of its mission through structures and processes that involve the board, faculty, staff, and students
  • Preparing 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
  • Student Learning and Effective Teaching
    • The organization provides evidence of student learning and teaching effectiveness that demonstrates it is fulfilling its educational mission
  • Acquisition, Discovery, and Application 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.
  • Engagement and Service
    • As called for by its mission, the organization identifies its constituencies and serves them in ways both value.
Back to Top

Supporting Pillars of the New Criteria

  • Future-Focused
  • Learning-Centered
  • Distinctive Institution
  • Connected Institution
Back to Top

Embedded Assessment Model

  • Evaluate performance on specific embedded knowledge measures
  • Evaluate overall performance
  • Specify assessment criteria to be used
  • Assign techniques to programs and embed knowledge measures
  • Select knowledge measures and techniques
  • Identify desired outcomes
Back to Top

The Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) Quality Criteria

  • Helping Students Learn
    • Understanding students’ and other stakeholders’ needs
    • Accomplishing other distinctive objectives
    • Building collaborative relationships
    • Planning continuous improvement
    • Supporting institutional operations
    • Valuing people
    • Leading and communicating
    • Measuring effectiveness
  • The Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) Model
    • Gather data on student learning
    • Evaluate reports on learning
    • Determine adjustments
    • Re-validate outcomes
    • Implement adjustments
    • Implications for Improvement
      • Accountability measures
      • Assessment processes
      • Learning environment
      • Learning resources
      • Instruction
      • Curriculum
      • Student learning
    • Align Assessment with Planning and Budgeting
Back to Top

The Emergence of a Culture of Assessment

  • Factors that Make a Culture
    • Written Materials
    • Formal and Informal Procedures
    • Organizational Structure
    • Social Knowledge
    • Reward Structure
    • Vocabulary, Metaphors, Legends, Stories, Folklore, Symbols, Rites and Rituals
Back to Top

University-Wide Operational Indicators: Trend Data Based on Annual Reporting

  • Report every year as an institution to NCA on indicators
  • NCA will gather the data every year
  • Less information on the ten year cycle, more on yearly basis
  • Indicators: report every year as an institution on these indicators
    • Demographics
    • Educational programs
    • Financial strength
    • Scope of Activities
  • Purpose of the operational indicators
    • To provide regular snapshots of organizational health
    • To mark dramatic or sudden changes
    • To provide longitudinal data upon which to determine trends
    • To lessen reporting requirements prior to team visits
    • To ensure greater accountability
Back to Top