|
ASPA News - July 2000
By David J. Werner, chair, ASPA Board of Directors; Chancellor, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Spring has been busy! ASPA was represented at the AAHE Assessment Forum held on June 16, 2000 in Charlotte, NC. Karen Martinez (AACSB: Management Education) and Frank Licari (CDA/ADA: Dental Accreditation) joined me in a presentation on "The Role of Assessment in Professional Accreditation." The presentation went well. And, it reinforced remarks made by other presentors that the focus on outcome measures by accreditors was keeping the assessment movement alive. I think we got some good publicity for ASPA and for specialized accreditation. The joint resolution by NASULGC and AAU on specialized accreditation standards that we discussed with David Shulenberger at our spring ASPA meeting was sent to CHEA. Several ASPA members assisted in preparing a strong draft statement of response which was distributed at the CHEA Conference in Washington DC on June 22. David Schulenberger’s presentation at the CHEA conference was similar to what he did at the ASPA meeting. Several ASPA members and I made comments and asked questions about the statement. Good or bad, I’m sure there will be more to come on this topic. (Note: the statement adopted by AAU & NASULGC was forwarded to CHEA for endorement; CHEA’s Specialized Advisory Panel will discuss the statement at the panel’s fall meeting. The statement and ASPA’s preliminary reply to it are enclosed elsewhere in this mailing.) The fall meeting—although it’s in August this year—is almost upon us. And, what an unusual meeting it will be with the regional and specialized accreditors meeting together. Key accreditation staff from all eight of the Regional Accrediting Commissions will be attending. Will all forty-five ASPA members be represented? I certainly hope so. Accreditation is a hot topic on the higher education landscape, and we have much to discuss with our counterparts in the regional commissions. So, get ready for New Orleans. Let’s plan to work, but also be ready to enjoy the French Quarter, oysters, crawfish, beignets, jazz, and all the other things that make New Orleans a truly unique American city.
New Orleans Hotel Rooms Many of you have already booked your hotel rooms for the fall ASPA meeting. This special meeting with the regional accrediting commissions will be held August 27-29 in New Orleans at the Hotel Monteleone. The group meeting rate of $99 per night plus tax is available until July 25th. Call (504) 523-3341 and ask for either the "Accreditation Staff Retreat" or meeting code IASPAC. Return to the top of the page! August Accreditation Retreat By ASPA planning committee chair, Betty J. Horton, COA-NA: Nurse Anesthesia, ASPA Vice-chair David Werner, ASPA Chair, and David Wolf, Chair of the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (CRAC), will welcome specialized and regional accreditors to a joint meeting in New Orleans on August 27-29, 2000. The meeting theme, "Cooperating for Quality," emphasizes the joint activities to be held during the event at the Hotel Monteleone. On Sunday, participants will be able to select between an orientation for new accreditors and the accreditor showcase before they attend the "Share Fair" and reception. (See the enclosed notice calling for contributions to the Share Fair.) Following the Monday morning keynote speakers, participants will be able to select among four separate tracks: cooperative efforts, student learning outcomes, streamlining accreditation, and compliance issues. These four tracks will be repeated, allowing participants to attend two of eight different sessions. The meeting also includes time for specialized and regional accreditors to meet independently. ASPA will hold its open business meeting on Monday afternoon, followed by a "Strategies to Improve Accreditation" program on the differences between initial and re-accreditation reviews. ASPA’s portion of the meeting will conclude early Tuesday afternoon following the professional development session. The committee’s topic for New Orleans is "Good Practices in the Use of Annual or Interim Reports." Accreditors will find registration materials with this newsletter mailing. ASPA members will want to register prior to July 25th in order to take advantage of the $50 early bird discount. The discount applies to all member registration fees but not to non-member fees. The reduced registration fee plus a hotel rate of $99 plus tax is intended to make it affordable for ASPA members to bring additional staff to the fall meeting. As in the past, Board members or chairs are also welcome. Register now to be part of the first meeting of specialized and regional accreditors since 1993! The ASPA portion of the meeting will begin about 12:00 noon on Sunday, August 27, 2000 and end about 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 29, 2000. _ Return to the top of the page! Membership Application Deadlines ASPA welcomes applications for membership from those specialized accreditors that meet the definitions posted on the ASPA web site: www. aspa-usa.org – click on "Membership Info." Applicants must submit proof that their decision-making body has reviewed and endorsed the ASPA member Code of Good Practice. Applications are due by February 15th for review at the spring meeting and by August 1st for the fall meeting. Please contact the ASPA office with any questions not answered by the materials on the web site. _ Return to the top of the page! The Case of the Public Member By Marga Rose Hancock, public member, ASPA Board of Directors Author's note: I undertook a quite unscholarly study of "the public member" to prepare for a panel discussion of the role of public and practitioner members in accreditation, convened at the Spring 2000 ASPA meeting held April 2-4 in Chicago. I gathered useful but informal data on the subject from several sources, including interviews and documents provided by several key observers of the recent history of accreditation. The summary here reflects the offerings of William R. Dill, Judith Eaton (CHEA), Fred Harcleroad (founding President of UC Hayward, now retired), Karen Kershenstein (DoE), Jay Levrio (Deputy Director, APMA); and also the responses of 26 accrediting organizations that completed and returned ASPA's survey on the subject of public and professional members – 22 specialized or professional and four regional accrediting bodies. Barbara Brown Robinson, a member of the ASPA Board and a panel collaborator, thoughtfully reviewed and compiled the survey results, and her summary (which she distributed to meeting attendees and has made available via ASPA) amplifies and illustrates the findings presented informally below. I sincerely thank all those who guided and provided information to this inquiry, and take responsibility for the representations below including all errors of fact or interpretation. – Marga Rose Hancock, April 2000. Accrediting agencies, required by statute to have public members on their decision- making bodies at a one-to-seven proportion, understand and fulfill this obligation in a variety of ways. This variety will surprise no one who follows the "accreditation industry," where each organization tends to reflect the unique culture of its own history and discipline. A Very Sketchy Chronology Among the ASPA respondents, two reported 1954 as the date their organizations added a public member to their decision-making bodies. This appears to correlate with a drive toward accountability in higher education and accreditation that followed the post-WW1 education boom. The requirement for public representation appears in the US Department of Education (DoE) regulations of 1974, the date cited by the preponderance of survey respondents for the initiation of public representation on their boards. For historical context, people who experienced or know the dominant social themes of that era may mark the consistency with the press for student and public participation in academic and other institutional processes. Within the accrediting community, key studies of that time, and the 1981 Council on Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA) provisions speak to the notion of "the public or outside member" and the "[reflection of] the community of interests directly affected by the agency, including effective public representation." By 1988, the COPA provisions called for the inclusion of "effective, impartial, and objective public representation in ... evaluation, policy, and decision-making processes," and a "fresh, non-professional, outside perspective." Most recently, the 2000 directives of the Secretary of Education delimit the public member as "NOT [emphasis mine] an employee or consultant or member of the governing board of an accredited program or institution, and NOT a member of a trade association or membership organization associated with the agency, and NOT a spouse, parent, child, or sibling of such an individual." Accrediting organizations report a range of terms used to describe and suggest the background of their public members, including "public representative," "business or community leader," "at-large member," "corporate executive," or "public consumer." Few define the qualifications of public members beyond a general statement; and when they do so, guidelines largely address these in the negative, e.g. "may not have a degree in the discipline and not employed professionally in the field." No organization provided a job description for the public member, nor did any organization report any special orientation or training for them differing from that provided to educator or practitioner members. Generally speaking, public members participate on an equal basis with other members of the decision-making bodies, though seven of the 22 specialized/professional accrediting organizations reporting do not include public members in review processes and site visits. Most organizations cited at least occasional difficulties in finding individuals qualified and willing to serve; with lack of commitment and other primary interests contributing to public member resignations. (The "no release time" phenomenon also affects practitioner members.) Organizations locate public members "any way we can," utilizing wide publication of available positions. Resourcefully, some "recycle" public members from other accrediting organizations: in fact, one individual may serve as an "educator" or "practitioner" member on one accrediting organization board, and as a public member on another, either simultaneously or sequentially. At least from time to time, organizations seek specific backgrounds or expertise from public members, most often citing the usefulness of legal expertise for various corporate advice. Others cited the value of administrative, financial, program evaluation, and business perspectives with organizational tasks and "appreciation of staff;" and a few mentioned the value of advocacy provided by their public members. In some case, public members from diverse backgrounds help bring ethnic and gender balance to the governing board. Although the survey did not include a specific question on resources made available to the public member and the tasks of public representation, no organization cited a budget specifically available for or dedicated to public representation (beyond support for the ordinary expenses of the public member[s] incurred in service to the organization). An array of observations of the public member experience came from the public members themselves. I contacted public members within the reporting group as well as others I know who serve as public members of other boards. The reasons cited include:
Here I drew on my own experience, as well as that of other public members I contacted, to document how the experience of service met expectations, and what problems public members may have encountered.
The structure and language of public membership on accrediting organization boards gives a large responsibility for public accountability and "representation of the public interest" to public members. I hasten to add that other organizational features and regulatory requirements address this public purpose in accreditation. But given the evidence, the expectations accrediting organizations have of their public members, the way in which both the organizations and educational institutions regard and treat public members, and the self-perceptions and challenges described by public members, I conclude that public members generally – in the view of their colleagues in accreditation and in their own self-perceptions – add a unique perspective to accreditation processes and practices. Thus the participation of public members, variously but consistently, adds to the value of accreditation to accredited units and to the public served by them. I would also suggest that accrediting organizations frequently miss or underplay opportunities to utilize public members to a kind of idealized maximum, to genuinely and manifestly represent the public – for instance, by providing a budget and means that would allow a public member to gather and reflect wide public response to a particular question of policy or procedure. I hope that the accrediting community, though this and further examination of the experience of public membership, can consider the opportunity to advance public understanding of the value of accreditation through effective, well-informed, appropriately supported, and visible utilization of the unique opportunity of public membership. _
Return to the top of the page! Update on Chicago Spring 2000 Meeting Washington attorney, Mark Pelesh, accepted ASPA’s invitation to attend the Sunday afternoon "Members Only" session to discuss the interest shown in the validity and reliability of accreditation standards by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity during the committee’s December 1999 meeting. Pelesh responded to many questions during the lively discussion. On Monday, David E. Shulenburger, Provost, University of Kansas, met with ASPA to discuss the draft AAU and NASULGC "Statement of Good Practices in the Establishment of Specialized Accreditation Standards." After seting a context for the statement, Shulenburger responded to specific questions and noted the many points raised during discussion. The statement and ASPA’s preliminary response to it are included with this mailing. Here are a few other highlights from the spring meeting. (The ASPA board and members receive meeting minutes in a separate mailing; others may request a copy by contacting the ASPA office.)
This popular program segment helps member and non-member accreditors learn more about their accreditation colleagues.
The morning included the following segments:
The afternoon included the following segments:
The evaluation forms reflected high ratings and praise for another well-planned and useful professional development day. The committee encourages you to forward ideas for future sessions to the ASPA office or to committee co-chairs, Mary Jane Harris (CAPTE: Physical Therapy) and Ann O’Neill (ALA: Library and Information Studies). Return to the top of the page! ( 1020 W. Byron Street - Suite 8G Chicago, IL 60613-2987 Phone: 773/525-2160 – Fax: 773/525-2162 E-mail: aspacd@aol.com – Web: www.aspa-usa.org Newsletter Edited/Produced in January and July by: Cynthia A. Davenport
| ||||||||||||||