Association of Specialized and
Professional Accreditors
March 2008; May 2008*
This document combines several previous ASPA
documents related to core values and principles. It is divided into separate
sections regarding the operation of ASPA as an organization as well as the
operation of individual accrediting bodies. It should be viewed as a resource
that supplements the ASPA Code of Good
Practice and provides further interpretation related to the roles and
functioning of ASPA and its member accreditors.
I.
FOR THE OPERATION OF THE ASSOCIATION
A.
The Association of
Specialized and Professional Accreditors shall:
1. Enhance
the relationship among the respective accrediting organizations through
scholarly thought, dialogue and activities to promote a climate of improvement of educational quality, service, rigor,
efficiency, and fairness in accreditation;
2. Respect and protect the integrity,
independence, and autonomy of accrediting organizations and their affiliated
institutions and programs;
3. Facilitate
collaboration among programs, institutions, and accrediting organizations;
4. Advocate quality improvement beyond
threshold standards in programs, institutions, and accrediting organizations;
5. Encourage a focus on student learning and graduate
competencies, rather than on methods utilized;
6. Establish means to respond effectively to
and discourage forces which promote duplication, fragmentation, and/or
inappropriate expansion of the accreditation system; and
7. Monitor and respond when deemed appropriate to
concepts and proposals that would impede conditions for effective work in
programs and institutions.
B. FUNCTIONS
Members
of the Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors work together to
fulfill the following interrelated functions:
1. Facilitate professional interaction for
organizations and individuals with accreditation responsibilities;
2. Provide a means for representing specialized
and professional accreditation in public and governmental policy forums, and to
the public;
3. Serve as a forum to exchange information and
develop shared access to resources among members of the specialized and
professional accreditation community;
4. Offer continuing education programming for
individuals and organizations with accreditation responsibilities;
5. Provide a means for receiving counsel and
sharing governance with administrative leaders of higher education
institutions, with academic and non-academic leaders of the professions, and
with the public;
6. Stimulate focused research on accreditation
issues; and
7. Provide a forum for policy analysis and
development.
C. OPERATING PRINCIPLES
The
Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors shall operate
consistent with the following principles:
1.
Orientation. The Association, the Board, and all Committees shall promote dignity,
respect, courtesy, and cooperation in all aspects of the Association's work.
2. Consensus. In principle, all affairs of the
Association, the Board, and various Committees shall be decided after efforts
to reach consensus.
3. Consultation. Consultation shall be a hallmark of all
aspects of the organization and its operations. In general, time shall be
provided for thorough review of all proposals before action is taken.
Association members, Board members, and others as appropriate shall be
solicited for their views at the beginning and during the course of major
policy reviews or initiatives. Care shall be taken to consult with appropriate
communities of interest in projects undertaken by the Association.
4.
Reporting. The Board and Committee on Nominations shall report regularly to the
Association. The Executive Committee, the Committee on Membership, the
Committee on Recognition, the Committee on Professional Development and all
other Committees shall report regularly to the Board and, through the Board, to
the Association.
5. Nondiscrimination
Policy. No person shall be subject to
discrimination in any relationship with the Association because of age, gender,
race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, marital
status, or disability.
D. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The Association strives to avoid conflict of
interest or the appearance of conflict of interest in all aspects of its
activities. The Association expects all individuals involved in any
relationship, including staff, to declare potential conflicts of interest as
they appear. Potential conflicts of interest may arise because of personal
associations; past, current, or projected affiliations; past or current
financial relationships; or for other reasons. Questions concerning conflicts
of interest should be addressed to the office of the Executive Director.
The officers of the Association, members of
the Board, and the Chair and members of a Committee on Recognition, if
established, may not serve concurrently as chair of an accrediting organization
or as chair or president of a national postsecondary association during the
time of their service to the Association in these positions. Staff of voting
members may serve in these positions as stipulated in the Bylaws.
No member of the Committee on Membership or,
if established, a Committee on Recognition, may participate in any way in
membership or recognition decisions in which he or she has a pecuniary or
personal interest (or the appearance of same) or with respect to which, because
of present organizational, institutional or program association, he or she has
divided loyalties or conflicts (or the appearance of same) on the outcome of
the decision. This restriction is not intended to prevent participation and
decision-making in matters that have no direct or substantial impact on the
organization, institution, or program with which the Committee member is
associated.
If a conflict of interest issue arises, the
matter shall be forwarded to the Executive Director who shall gather
information, solicit advice as appropriate, and attempt to resolve the matter
to the satisfaction of all concerned, consistent with the published policies
and procedures of the Association and with consideration of standard practice
within the postsecondary accreditation community. Should the Executive Director
be unable to achieve resolution, he or she shall refer the matter to the ASPA
Chair or the Executive Committee, as appropriate. If the conflict involves the
Executive Director, the matter shall be referred to the Executive Committee.
The assigned Chair or Executive Committee shall seek resolution through
procedures developed to address the specifics of each case. These procedures
shall avoid conflict of interest or the appearance of same.
E. COMPLAINTS
The
Association will investigate complaints regarding a member agency only if the
complaint contains facts or allegations that, if substantiated, may indicate
that the member agency is not following the ASPA
Code of Good Practice or is not in compliance as a member in good
standing as defined by ASPA’s membership criteria.
The
Association will not intervene on behalf of an individual complainant regarding
an ASPA member agency issue and will not serve to mediate or determine the
results of disputes between or among student, faculty, program or institution
and the member agency.
II.
FOR THE OPERATION OF ACCREDITING BODIES
A. VISION
An accrediting
body is successful if it is able to:
1.
promote
trust within its own specific accreditation arena and maintain the trust of
higher education, the public, the professions, and the accreditation community
based on its ability to balance numerous interests and perspectives with
integrity and fairness,
2.
uphold
by word and deed the highest ideals and standards of service,
3.
promote
effective balances among autonomy, mutual accountability, diversity, and common
responsibility,
4.
develop
effective standards, policies, and decisions that advance quality education,
cooperation, and creativity,
5.
stimulate
development of evaluation concepts that promote substantive educational results,
6.
enjoy a
reputation for independence, due process, intellectual depth, and technical
competence, and
7.
serve
as a primary source of expertise and assistance in matters of evaluation and
quality assurance to the many constituents of accreditation.
B.
VALUES
AND PHILOSOPHY
This section
outlines seven basic values for the accreditation community as a whole. It
discusses the fundamental concepts underlying successful and effective
accreditation in a peer-review framework. Effective accrediting bodies apply
the following values and philosophies to guide and evaluate a broad range of
decisions.
1.
Trust is critical to the success of specific accreditation reviews,
individual accreditation organizations, and the accreditation system as a
whole.
Accreditation
addresses issues of quality, effectiveness, and integrity in higher education.
Accreditation recognizes that higher education occurs in many different
settings and formats, none exactly the same as any other. The trust that is at
the heart of effective accreditation must be earned through extreme care with
decisions, positions, and public pronouncements.
The following
basic principles of trust guide accreditors.
a.
Accreditation
is not owned by any one set of interests. Individual accrediting bodies must
reflect a variety of interests as they establish policy and make decisions.
b.
Peer
review is central to accreditation work at every level, including national
recognition or oversight mechanisms. Significant responsibility for standards
and procedures as well as evaluation by peers must be given to those entities
that are to be reviewed.
c.
Trust
is built over time. Consistently applying principles and meeting the same
expectations we hold for others are critical if trust is to be gained and
maintained.
d.
Effective
accreditation will produce natural tensions within the higher education
context. These tensions must be used to develop and operate appropriate systems
of checks and balances and to seek improvements, not to promote a climate of
fear and hostility. Mutual respect among institutions, programs, and
accrediting bodies is indispensable in achieving success.
e.
The
accreditation community must demonstrate constantly its ability to communicate
effectively with, listen intently to, and work in the common interests of
institutions and programs of higher education, the public, the disciplines and
the professions.
2.
Service is the core of accreditors’ missions, goals, objectives, and
attitudes.
a.
Accreditation
does not deliver education. Instead, it assures attainment of certain
thresholds of acceptability, and it promotes quality beyond each threshold.
Therefore, accreditation serves higher education; it does not control
higher education.
b.
Given
these realities, providing service is far more important than seeking,
securing, or exercising power.
c.
Effective
accrediting bodies acknowledge limits to their powers and continually seek to
raise the quality of their service within those limits. In general, they
exhibit a sense of discipline and restraint about the real and symbolic uses of
their influence. They concentrate on helping institutions, programs, and
individuals find their own answers through a self-assessment component. They
seek quick, effective, and diplomatic solutions to problems. They respect the
vast expertise and significant achievements evident in the work of many institutions
and programs.
d.
Accrediting
bodies also inform the public about the accredited status of institutions and
programs, provide information and counsel about the meaning and process of
accreditation, maintain means for concerned parties to seek assistance or file
complaints as necessary, and serve the advancement of intellectual and
professional work by encouraging the fullest possible development of student
capacities.
3.
Autonomy balanced by mutual accountability is preferable to central
control enforced by regulation.
The vast array of
institutions, programs, disciplines, and professions involved in accreditation
demands a system where autonomous bodies volunteer to be mutually accountable.
Voluntary mutual accountability allows accreditors to produce a quality
assurance and enhancement mechanism that allows for diversity of approach,
maximum creativity, quick response to evolving complexities, and the freedom
from interference that enables outstanding achievement. It also enables peer
review to work effectively when knowledge is expanding at very rapid rates. It
is the best way to maintain the integrity of degrees and other credentials
while content expands and educational delivery systems change.
Accreditation
organizations implement their accreditation systems within broad principles of
autonomy, while applying respect for the rights and responsibilities of their
respective institutions and programs with regard to their respective missions,
goals, and objectifies; educational and philosophical principles; approaches to
content; areas of study; operational decisions; and content and methodologies
of tests, evaluations, and assessments.
Peer review that
balances autonomy and mutual accountability respects multiple means for
reaching common ends, and keeps clear distinctions between compliance with
threshold criteria and recommendations for improvement. In addition, new
technologies will both demand and facilitate governance based on mutual
accountability of autonomous bodies and institutions within networks.
Accreditation and the accreditation system, having embraced the mutual
accountability approach for decades, must, in the interests of quality and creativity,
continue to resist regulatory approaches.
4.
A
focus on the essence of educational quality provides the most effective bases for
decision-making.
Accreditation
actions and decisions about accreditation must result from careful
consideration of all points of view and a genuine search for consensus on
fundamental matters of policy. Consistent reputations for intellectual
integrity, calm deliberation, collaborative effort, and prudent judgment will
produce transcending respect and support. A focus on educational quality is
essential if accreditation is to maintain its values regarding service, mutual
accountability, and trust.
5.
Results achieved and functions fulfilled indicate effectiveness more
than the presence of means or the utilization of methods.
Accreditation is
primarily concerned with the achievement of goals for teaching and learning. It
is also concerned with the presence and management of tangible or intangible
resources for educational achievement. While concerned with means, accreditors must
not dictate means. To do so destroys the concept of autonomy balanced by mutual
accountability. Accrediting bodies focus on the work of the institution or
program, not on themselves as organizations or their evaluation process or
method.
Accreditors also
respect the different means and approaches for achieving and evaluating results
indigenous to and varying within the many disciplines and professions.
Accreditation standards and procedures respect different habits of work and
mind, various approaches to and perspectives on content, and the often unique
quality of superior work.
6.
Statements regarding scope of authority, operations, and decision-making
must be public and exhibit integrity, set reasonable limits, guide work, and
promote the professionalism that engenders confidence.
The complexities,
multiple responsibilities, and high expectations of the accreditation arena
demand that accrediting bodies and the accreditation system as a whole be
governed by written documents. These documents must be developed and maintained
without regard for personal agendas and prerogatives.
Accrediting
bodies and the accreditation system as a whole must be governed by published
bylaws, procedures, policies, and regulations so that its basic fairness and
consistency are widely recognized and consistently applied. Professional
judgment must be exercised, but within the context of published guidelines.
Organizations
concerned with accreditation must exhibit technical proficiency with
organizational and operational matters so that work in these arenas supports
rather than dominates the work of accreditation. Mechanisms must be in place to
ensure consistency of treatment across the range of review actions. Scopes of
authority must be clearly defined for all individuals and groups.
7.
Excellence requires expertise sufficient to each task.
Higher education
is devoted to the development of expertise. It follows, therefore, that respect
for expertise is central to accreditation activity. Research and analysis,
individual competence and experience, knowledge and skills gained through
personal study and interaction all contribute. In terms of content and process,
accreditation involves the expertise of individuals in higher education,
including accreditation professionals, members of the professions, and the
public in order to promote trust, encourage a service orientation, and protect
autonomy.
The assignment of
expertise to specific tasks is a critical matter. The complexity of the
accreditation arena and the increasing sophistication of accrediting operations
demand careful matching of capability and capacity with each task to be done.
March 2008: Endorsed in principle by ASPA Members
*May 2008: Edits requested by Members approved by ASPA
Board