I am getting ready to leave to be part of a reaccreditation team at an out of state University. The University and the school involved are first rate and I am also pleased to be part of a strong reaccreditation team. I agree, approximately every other year, to be part of a reaccreditation team and I think this is an important responsibility for deans and provosts. I know it is always difficult to leave your office for an extended period to focus on the strengths and challenges of another institution but I also believe we are all stronger as a result of this self monitoring process.
I have been involved with accreditation for decades, first on the receiving end as dean and provost and also on the “giving” end once again as dean and provost. My initial experience was helping get ready for both Middle States and AACSB visits many decades ago and subsequently, I also gained experience as part of multiple visiting teams. There has never been a visit that I have been on or a visit that I have prepared for that hasn’t resulted in my being better informed and better able to function as dean or provost. In addition, self monitoring through a regional accreditation organization or a specialized discipline based organization is so much better, more helpful, and more accurate in my opinion than having government involved more than it already is in these areas. Just seeing how government has recently dealt with K-12 testing in New York or teacher and administrator evaluations has reinforced my strong feelings in this area. Only when over testing has reached crisis proportions does government finally realize that perhaps they have gone too far. And now, how do we reverse the negative effect on the students involved? I have to believe that if superintendents, principals and teachers were leading this effort the results would have been different, and I think the same situation applies in higher education.
Very often, accreditation teams seem to be populated by individuals who have been involved in many previous accreditations and previous visits. I recognize that I resemble that remark and I also recognize the value of experienced accreditors. But I also understand the value of new blood. I don’t have the data to know whether there are many new deans and provosts involved in accreditation activities. But I think this involvement is extremely important and should be encouraged. When the next opportunity arises to be involved in this effort, please say yes and encourage your colleagues to do likewise. It really does make the positive difference we are all looking for.
Showing posts with label accreditation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label accreditation. Show all posts
Monday, November 25, 2013
Monday, May 23, 2011
Accreditations
I have just finished updating my profile for an accrediting agency that both Hofstra and I are involved with. The update was necessary if I wanted to be considered for a future accreditation review team. I recognize that being part of an accreditation team entails significant work but I do so gladly because I think that accreditation makes an important positive difference.
My first experience with accreditation was three decades ago when I was serving as associate provost (and subsequently business school dean) and was very involved in preparing for a visit by AACSB, the national and international business school accrediting agency. The end result of this effort was a stronger business school in every meaningful way, including the accomplishments of the faculty as well as the breadth and depth of the curriculum. My next experience occurred when I was serving a few years later as acting dean of the school of education and I was very much involved in an NCATE visit. Once again, in preparing for the visit and in adhering to the standards, we were clearly a better school of education. At this point in time, I have been involved in multiple accreditations, multiple times, and have also served on Middle States Periodic Review teams, AACSB visitation teams and ABA visitation teams. From my first impressions of accreditation to the current time, my opinion has stayed the same: I think that accreditations, both voluntary and required, serve enhance the education we provide.
Is this always a perfect process? Hardly! Two concerns stand out. Firstly, there are accreditation team members who view everything that anyone else does through the lens of what happens at their home institution. There is more than one curriculum structure that accomplishes what needs to be accomplished. There is more than one way of assessing outcomes. There is more than one way of doing much of what we do. Anyone who comes in with a fondness only for what is done at his/her home institution, at the expense of alternate philosophies that are within the accreditation standards, is doing a tremendous disservice. Hopefully the other visiting team members can moderate any such tendency in this direction, but especially if it is the visiting team chair that has this bias, it can be a real problem.
The second concern is when a member of the accreditation team or the chair of the accreditation team looks for perfection in measuring whether a standard has been met. A person new to an accreditation team is most vulnerable to having perfection as a standard. A person who has been on the receiving end of such an accreditation committee member may also be somewhat vulnerable to advocating this standard when they are part of a team. Perfection is not a realistic standard (or a realistic expectation) but overall high quality needs to be the standard against which an institution or a program is measured. And hopefully the efforts of the visiting team will help move an institution further in that direction.
Overall, for me, accreditation translates into verifiable quality. I am very pleased that so many of Hofstra’s programs are nationally accredited and I think we are all well served by accreditations.
My first experience with accreditation was three decades ago when I was serving as associate provost (and subsequently business school dean) and was very involved in preparing for a visit by AACSB, the national and international business school accrediting agency. The end result of this effort was a stronger business school in every meaningful way, including the accomplishments of the faculty as well as the breadth and depth of the curriculum. My next experience occurred when I was serving a few years later as acting dean of the school of education and I was very much involved in an NCATE visit. Once again, in preparing for the visit and in adhering to the standards, we were clearly a better school of education. At this point in time, I have been involved in multiple accreditations, multiple times, and have also served on Middle States Periodic Review teams, AACSB visitation teams and ABA visitation teams. From my first impressions of accreditation to the current time, my opinion has stayed the same: I think that accreditations, both voluntary and required, serve enhance the education we provide.
Is this always a perfect process? Hardly! Two concerns stand out. Firstly, there are accreditation team members who view everything that anyone else does through the lens of what happens at their home institution. There is more than one curriculum structure that accomplishes what needs to be accomplished. There is more than one way of assessing outcomes. There is more than one way of doing much of what we do. Anyone who comes in with a fondness only for what is done at his/her home institution, at the expense of alternate philosophies that are within the accreditation standards, is doing a tremendous disservice. Hopefully the other visiting team members can moderate any such tendency in this direction, but especially if it is the visiting team chair that has this bias, it can be a real problem.
The second concern is when a member of the accreditation team or the chair of the accreditation team looks for perfection in measuring whether a standard has been met. A person new to an accreditation team is most vulnerable to having perfection as a standard. A person who has been on the receiving end of such an accreditation committee member may also be somewhat vulnerable to advocating this standard when they are part of a team. Perfection is not a realistic standard (or a realistic expectation) but overall high quality needs to be the standard against which an institution or a program is measured. And hopefully the efforts of the visiting team will help move an institution further in that direction.
Overall, for me, accreditation translates into verifiable quality. I am very pleased that so many of Hofstra’s programs are nationally accredited and I think we are all well served by accreditations.
Labels:
accreditation
Monday, February 8, 2010
Assessing Assessment
I have just made my airline reservations to Fort Lauderdale for the middle of February. This is not a vacation; rather I am serving on an ABA reaccreditation team for Nova Southeastern Law School. Over the years, I have served as a Middle States periodic reviewer (most recently as the first reviewer for Johns Hopkins and the second reviewer for American); ABA reviewer (most recently for Memphis Law School) and during my earlier life as a business school dean, I served not only on visiting teams but as a member of the Initial Accreditation Committee of AACSB. I have also been on the receiving end of accreditation visits numerous times—just recently we had 14 reaccreditation visits at Hofstra in the last two years.
Labels:
accreditation,
Assessment,
peer review,
reaccreditation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)