Accreditation Stress: It’s Real, and You Need to Prepare for It.

In nearly every profession there are standards by which institutions, agencies, and programs are held accountable. State, regional, national, and profession-specific bodies determine the health and strength of an institution in a variety of ways, one of which is through an accreditation site visit. While each body’s requirements vary, accreditation is determined through a rigorous program review process. This requires a significant financial, personnel, and resource commitment on the part of each institution.

In many instances, staff involved in the accreditation process focus so much on preparing for the site visit they aren’t ready for the emotional or physical toll that it can take on them. Moreover, the stress usually doesn’t end when the site review team leaves. My experience in accreditation over the past 10 years has confirmed there’s a need for this kind of information, and yet it’s a topic I’ve never seen addressed at conferences or in professional literature.

Accreditation-related stress and anxiety are real. You might be able to function, and you may be able to hide it from others. But, how do you know if it’s starting to get the best of you? And what can you do about it?

Red Flag Alert: Signs the Stress is Negatively Impacting Your Life

You’re surviving, but you’re not thriving. You may be making it through each day, but the quality of your life is suffering. You aren’t enjoying the things you used to enjoy. You feel guilty about taking the time to watch a sunset or to read a book. Every waking moment is spent thinking about the site visit.

Those lights in your brain just won’t shut off. You can’t sleep, even though you feel exhausted. You’re worn out physically and mentally, but you can’t allow yourself to take even a few hours off to rest.

You’re numb inside. You have no appetite and aren’t eating. You’ve even managed to shut down your emotions. It’s like you’ve gone on auto-pilot and feel like a robot.

You feel empty, like there’s a gaping hole inside. But even though the emptiness isn’t from hunger you binge eat everything in sight. And then you still look around for more because you still have that huge gaping hole that just can’t seem to be filled.

You become obsessed with every detail, no matter how minute it may seem. It’s those little foxes that spoil the vine—and you’re determined that you’re going to make sure NOTHING is overlooked.  

You come to believe that you are ultimately responsible for the success of the site visit. If you’re honest with yourself, you don’t think others are as committed to success as you are. The little voice inside you says, “If you want something done right, you’ve got to do it yourself!”

You start to resent others who don’t seem as stressed out as you are. While you hate feeling like you have the weight of the world on your shoulders, you refuse to delegate responsibility to others and then you get mad when you hear that they went to a movie or a concert over the weekend.

Drink the Stress Away: You may hear yourself saying, “I just need to take the edge off” or “I just need to relax for a while.” Having one glass of Chardonnay is one thing but knocking back five tequila shots in 30 minutes is another.

Ups and Downs: You may self-medicate by taking a pill or two to help you sleep because even though you’re exhausted, you’re wired due to all the stress.

Caffeine overload: You may guzzle coffee, soda, or Red Bull throughout the day (or night) because, “I’ve got to keep going for just a little while longer.”

Shop ‘til Your Fingers Drop: On a whim you may go on a shopping spree and spend a ton of money on things you probably didn’t really need. Not at a brick and mortar store or mall—that would be far too self-indulgent. Instead, you likely visited Zappos or Amazon, where you could remain close to your computer and be right there to respond to an urgent email should one land in your Inbox.

Keep Setting the Bar Higher: You set impossible standards for yourself to meet and then criticize yourself endlessly when you don’t meet them. It’s like you’re obsessed with proving something to others—and to yourself. Except that you’re never satisfied with your performance, even when you do things well.

Slay the Dragon: You plan things down to each minute detail, leaving no stone unturned. You review things in your mind, over and over again. You obsess about forgetting something. You are determined to emerge victorious, regardless of the personal cost.

The Gift that Keeps on Giving

Think the stress of getting ready for a site visit only affects you? Think again. If you have close friends, a life partner, or children, they are affected as well. It’s possible that your furry buddies at home can even detect your anxiety. You’ll know if your stress is out of balance if you hear a loved one say, “I miss you!” “I HATE your job!” or “Will this ever end?”

 

Moving from Surviving to Thriving: How to Manage Your Stress in a Healthy Way

Even Superman struggled at times with Kryptonite, but he found ways to adapt and overcome those challenges, and so can you. While an accreditation site visit always leads to a certain level of stress, there are things you can do to minimize the anxiety. For example:

Prepare ahead of time: It may sound simplistic, but a lot of stress can be avoided by getting a jumpstart on the process. If you don’t start on the process until 6 or 8 months before the site visit, you are putting yourself squarely in the crosshairs of some serious stress and anxiety. Ideally, quality assurance should be an integral part of every program, so there really shouldn’t be any significant scrambling or looking for data—your institution should already be reviewing, analyzing, looking for trends, and making data-driven decisions to improve programs on a continual basis. That said, you should plan on starting your self-study report (SSR) no later than 18 months prior to a scheduled site visit. The more you delay this timetable, the higher your stress level will be. Guaranteed.

Hire a consultant: Let’s face it–not everyone has a lot of expertise when it comes to writing self-study reports, gathering evidence, and preparing for site visits. In many institutions, departments are understaffed and often wear multiple hats of responsibility. Except in very large institutions or those that operate in multiple states, most institutions don’t have to deal with accreditation matters on a regular basis and so therefore few have a high level of confidence in that area. In some schools, new faculty are assigned to coordinate a site visit because more seasoned faculty refuse to do it. This is wrong on so many levels, and yet it’s a frequent occurrence. An experienced consultant could provide the kind of guidance and support that may be needed. Such an arrangement can actually be cost-effective, given that the institution isn’t having to pay for someone’s full-time salary, benefits, or office space.

Provide faculty/staff training: Letting others know what to expect and getting them on board early on will greatly reduce anxiety for everyone. Plan a kickoff event, and then schedule periodic retreats/advances. Create a solid communication protocol and stick with it. When team members are fully informed and are active contributors to the process, the stress is reduced for everyone.

Delegate to others as much as possible: It’s important to have a project manager/coordinator for every major project, and that includes accreditation site visits. However, that does NOT mean that this one person needs to take on the bulk of the responsibility—quite the contrary. Instead, that person should be seen as a “conduit” who facilitates the flow of information between internal and external stakeholders. That person should also play the primary role in delegating tasks to appropriate personnel and maintaining a schedule so that tasks are completed on time.

It’s OK to talk about it: Know that a certain amount of stress and anxiety are normal reactions to accreditation site visit preparation, but it doesn’t have to be overwhelming. Don’t be afraid to talk with your colleagues and leadership about your stress level. It’s entirely possible that others share your feelings—it might be helpful to start a small informal support group. Getting together one day a week for lunch works wonders.

Be upfront with your friends and loved ones: Help them to know what to expect and make them a part of the celebration once it’s over. Your children, significant other, and close friends may not be writing the self-study report or creating pieces of evidence, but they are most definitely involved in the site visit process as a part of your support system.

Be kind to yourself: This may sound silly but it’s really important. Purposely build one nice thing into your personal calendar each day. It may be taking a walk, working out, or reading for pleasure for 30 minutes, but regardless what you choose it’s crucial that you make this a part of your schedule.

Be ready when it’s over:  You may find that you can hold yourself together from start to finish, but then after the site review team packs up and leaves your institution you have a feeling of not quite knowing what to do with yourself. What you’ve focused all your energy on for 18 months is suddenly over. This can result in your emotions taking a deep dive—and it can last for several weeks. You can greatly reduce this by planning a combination of fun activities and work activities for your next four weeks after the site visit. You’ve been functioning within a very structured paradigm for several months—to suddenly have nothing to do will likely lead to additional anxiety so it’s best to transition back slowly.

The bottom line is that while accreditation site visits are stressful by their very nature, they don’t have to get the best of you.

 

Dr. Roberta Ross-Fisher is a national leader in quality assurance, educator preparation, and empowerment-based learning. She supports educational institutions and non-profit agencies in areas such as accreditation, competency-based education, and teacher/school leader prep programs design.  Roberta also writes about academic excellence and can be contacted for consultations, webinars, and on-site workshops through her site (www.robertarossfisher.com). 

###

 

 

 

 

Video Presentation: Practical Strategies for CAEP Site Visit Preparation (Segment 2)

Is your institution gearing up for an accreditation site visit in the next year or two? Not quite sure where to begin? If so, please check out my video presentation entitled, Practical Strategies for CAEP Site Visit Preparation. The presentation has been broken into two segments:

Segment #1 provides an overview of the accreditation process, focusing in particular on the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP).

Segment #2 provides very practical information and suggestions for what staff can do to increase the likelihood of a smooth and successful site visit.

Here you can access Segment #2:

 

Dr. Roberta Ross-Fisher is a national leader in quality assurance, educator preparation, and empowerment-based learning. She supports educational institutions and non-profit agencies in areas such as accreditation, competency-based education, and teacher/school leader prep programs design.  Roberta also writes about academic excellence and can be contacted for consultations, webinars, and on-site workshops through her site (www.robertarossfisher.com). 

###

Video Presentation: Practical Strategies for CAEP Site Visit Preparation (Segment 1)

Is your institution gearing up for an accreditation site visit in the next year or two? Not quite sure where to begin? If so, please check out my video presentation entitled, Practical Strategies for CAEP Site Visit Preparation. The presentation has been broken into two segments:

Segment #1 will provide an overview of the accreditation process, focusing in particular on the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP).

Segment #2 provides very practical information and suggestions for what staff can do to increase the likelihood of a smooth and successful site visit.

Here you can access Segment #1:

Dr. Roberta Ross-Fisher is a national leader in quality assurance, educator preparation, and empowerment-based learning. She supports educational institutions and non-profit agencies in areas such as accreditation, competency-based education, and teacher/school leader prep programs design.  Roberta also writes about academic excellence and can be contacted for consultations, webinars, and on-site workshops through her site (www.robertarossfisher.com). 

###

Accreditation Site Visits: Dare to Prepare!

Let’s face it: Accreditation is stressful. There’s nothing pleasant or enjoyable about the process. It’s one of those things that institutions must have in order to keep the doors open and classrooms or hospital beds filled, but it’s about as dearly loved as a root canal. Without anesthesia.

Institutions seeking the seal of quality assurance approval through a regional, national, or functional accrediting body often focus almost exclusively on writing the self-study report and overlook the amount of time and advanced planning needed to prepare for the site visit itself. There is an old saying that, “It’s the little foxes that spoil the vine” and this is so true in the context of accreditation site visits. Many times, details that may seem to be minute or inconsequential can have a significant impact on the success of a site visit.

Does your educational institution have an upcoming site visit? I can provide you and your staff with lots of practical tips that are essential to success, yet often overlooked. We can talk about essential elements to success such as:

  • Creating a project management plan;
  • Developing an effective communication protocol;
  • Holding regular team scrums;
  • Technology tools;
  • Food & lodging for the visiting team;
  • Physical arrangements for the onsite review;
  • Training interviewees;
  • The value of mock visits; and
  • Much more

 

The accreditation process likely won’t ever be enjoyable, but it can be manageable. I’m glad to help you and your team be at your very best so that you’ll be ready for this important event!

–rrf

 

Dr. Roberta Ross-Fisher is a national leader in educator preparation, accreditation, online learning, and academic quality assurance. An accomplished presenter, writer, and educator, she currently supports higher education, P-12 schools, and educational agencies in areas such as competency-based education, teacher preparation, distance learning, leadership, outcomes-based performance, making data-driven decisions, and accreditation through her company, Global Educational Consulting, LLC. She also writes about various issues related to academic excellence through her blog site (www.robertarossfisher.com). Roberta can be reached through Twitter (@RRossFisher), LinkedIn (Roberta Ross-Fisher), Facebook (Roberta Ross-Fisher), and email at: globaleducationalconsulting@gmail.com

 

 

Uniqueness vs. Accreditation: Why Must We Choose?

In the most recent issue of the New England Journal of Higher Education, Mark LaCelle-Peterson introduces the educator preparation community to a new way of thinking about quality assurance and accreditation of programs. In the piece, LaCelle-Peterson challenges the notion that measuring the quality of an education program through a compliance lens really isn’t necessary—in fact, it can sometimes inhibit quality by forcing programs to demonstrate adherence to a rigid set of standards and criteria that may or may not be an appropriate fit for all programs given the diversity of missions, visions, populations served, and instructional delivery approaches. For example, what may be appropriate criteria for measuring the quality of a program that serves 18-22-year-old students on a residential suburban campus may be quite different from one that serves learners whose average age is 39 and who pursue their academic studies online within a competency-based educational model. Both prepare educators. Both are committed to quality. But when it comes to making judgments about those programs, one size just doesn’t seem to fit all—and what’s more, why should it? Why is it necessary to have a single set of standards and criteria that all programs must adhere to?

It seems to me that as a community of educators we figured out a long time ago that creating one lesson plan and teaching to students in the middle was simply not an effective approach—nor was it ethical, because that model failed to consider the needs of students who did not fit into a pre-determined mold.  Today we encourage our teacher candidates to not only acknowledge the differences in students, but to embrace that diversity, and to celebrate it—because we know that a diverse group of learners contributes to a dynamic and robust community—one that thrives because of its diversity, not in spite of it.

Quality assurance measures through an appropriate accreditation model can be instrumental to preparation programs’ success through data-driven decision making, continuous program review, and collaboration within the community. Program leaders should not have to put their uniqueness on a shelf in pursuit of accreditation.

–rrf

Dr. Roberta Ross-Fisher is a national leader in education transformation, teacher preparation, and academic quality assurance. An accomplished presenter and writer, she currently supports educational institutions and non-profit agencies in areas such as educational systems design, online learning experiences, competency-based education, and accreditation. Roberta also blogs about academic excellence and can be contacted for consultations, webinars, and on-site workshops through her site (www.robertarossfisher.com). 

###

Is Being Accredited Really That Important When Selecting a College?

We all hear and read about the benefits of earning a college degree: We make more money over a lifetime; we get better jobs; we receive company-paid benefits; we tend to be happier and healthier overall. However, choosing the right college or university can be quite daunting, and yet it’s terribly important, because not all institutions are alike, and the quality can vary widely. While there are lots of things to consider such as cost, degree programs, scheduling, and the like, one thing many college students often overlook is whether or not the university is accredited.

There are many types of accreditation–you may likely hear terms such as regional accreditation, national accreditation, functional or programmatic accreditation, and sometimes even state accreditation. Each plays an important role in quality assurance for specific programs or an entire institution but here’s a strong recommendation:

Don’t ever take a single course from an institution that is not accredited. Never. Ever.

While no guarantee of perfection, accredited institutions have provided certain levels of assurance to respected bodies within academia that students will be taken care of. Non-accredited institutions have had no one looking over their shoulder, digging deep and looking in various academic or financial nooks and crannies; they can accept your money with absolutely no guarantee that the course or degree that you completed will be worth anything at all.

Plus, if you complete courses from an unaccredited institution, there is no guarantee that those courses will be accepted should you decide to transfer to another university later on. Even worse, if you go the distance and complete an entire degree from an institution that’s not accredited, you may find that many employers or graduate schools will not recognize that degree–in their eyes it will be like you don’t have a degree at all–but you’ll still have those student loans to pay back just the same.

Here is an entertaining yet informative video that clears up some of the confusion:

ASPA 2016 Explainer

You should be able to choose a college or university that fits your particular needs:

  • faith-based
  • public
  • private
  • traditional brick & mortar
  • online
  • non-profit
  • for-profit

Regardless of which you choose, make sure it’s a program that is accredited.

–rrf

 

Dr. Roberta Ross-Fisher is a national leader in educator preparation, accreditation, online learning, and academic quality assurance. An accomplished presenter, writer, and educator, she currently supports higher education and P-12 schools in areas such as competency-based education, teacher preparation, distance learning, and accreditation through her company, Global Educational Consulting, LLC. She can be reached at: globaleducationalconsulting@gmail.com

 

Accreditation Site Visit Logistics

Preparing for an accreditation site visit is always stressful for university faculty and staff, even under the best of circumstances. Depending on whether we’re talking about a regional accrediting body, a state compliance audit, or a discipline-specific accreditor, there are certain processes and procedures that must be followed. However, for the sake of simplicity, this blog will focus on one discipline–that of teacher preparation–using the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) as the sample accrediting body. In this piece, I provide topics to be covered during a pre-visit conference call between the site team lead, the education preparation provider (EPP), and state representatives. By the end of this call, all parties should be “on the same page” and should be clear regarding what to expect in the upcoming site visit. Here are the topics that are essential to cover:

  • Any general questions the EPP has regarding completion of the Addendum
  • Confirm Addendum submission date
  • Review and revise draft visit schedule
  • Travel Details
    • Confirm preferred airport
    • If arrival and departure times coincide, team prefers to pick up a rental car at the airport and provide their own transportation during the site visit.
    • Otherwise, EPP will need to make ground transportation arrangements.
  • Reminder per CAEP guidelines: No receptions, banquets, poster sessions, dinners with EPP representatives, etc.
  • School Visits
    • Typically limit of 2 (from different grade levels such as 1 Elem & 1 HS)
    • Should not require significant drive time
    • EPP should provide a guide (typically faculty) to drive and serve as host/hostess
    • Usually should take no more than 1 hour on-site at school
  • Work Room at Hotel and on Campus
    • Must be secure and private; lockable.
    • Only site team members and state representatives are to enter the work rooms.
    • Conference table large enough to accommodate all team members and state representatives
    • Printer, secure wifi, LCD or HDTV projector
    • Shredder
    • Basic office supplies (i.e., stapler, paper clips, post-its, note pads, pens, highlighters, etc.)
  • Food/Snacks
    • There should be healthy snacks and beverages (i.e., bottled water, coffee, soda) in the work room at the hotel and on campus.
    • The team will eat breakfast at the hotel each morning.
    • If at all possible, the team will want to remain on campus for lunch, with the ideal arrangement to have lunch catered either in the workroom or in an adjacent room.
    • The EPP should suggest a variety of restaurants within easy driving distance of the hotel for dinner each night.
  • Interviews
    • Generate interviewee list.
      • Dean
      • Assessment Director
      • Field Experiences Coordinator
      • Full-Time Faculty
      • Key Adjunct Faculty
      • Current candidates representing multiple programs
      • Program completers representing multiple programs
      • Cooperating teachers from field experiences
      • Clinical supervisors
      • P-12 partners (i.e., superintendents, principals, teachers, etc.)
      • Other:
    • Interview Rooms
      • Depending on final schedule, 3 rooms may be needed simultaneously.
      • Should have a door for privacy
      • EPP representatives should not attend interviews with candidates, program completers, or cooperating teachers
      • EPP should prepare sign-in sheets for each interview.
      • A staff member should be responsible for get all participants to sign in and then leave the room.
      • All sign-in sheets should be sent to the site team lead.
    • Requests for Additional Information or Data
      • All requests should flow from and back to the site team lead.

There will be additional items to discuss but these are the most essential. Remember–advanced preparation is one key to a successful site visit. Do your homework and know what is required. Get organized. Appoint someone with experience to coordinate the event. Start well in advance. And if in doubt, hire a consultant. Earning accreditation is crucial to an institution’s overall success and should never be taken lightly.

–rrf

 

Dr. Roberta Ross-Fisher is a national leader in educator preparation, accreditation, online learning, and academic quality assurance. An accomplished presenter, writer, and educator, she currently supports higher education and P-12 schools in areas such as competency-based education, teacher preparation, distance learning, and accreditation through her company, Global Educational Consulting, LLC. She can be reached at: globaleducationalconsulting@gmail.com

A Global Commitment to Academic Quality

There appears to be an increasing effort to ensure the academic quality of higher education institutions across the globe, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Ministry of Education is leading the way in that region. Starting in early 2018, all licensed colleges and universities will be issued a star rating based on a variety of data that when considered holistically will reveal useful information regarding each institution’s quality, relevance, innovation, and efficiency. Within the context of these four pillars, determinations will be made regarding institutional teaching quality, public reputation, and internationalization (globalization), likely with a drill-down to the programmatic level. For the most part, these criteria are similar to what other nations have focused on. However, the UAE Ministry of Education has decided to take it a step further by adding another criterion by which to rate the quality of its licensed colleges and universities: that of research. Program efficacy and impact are often key indicators of an institution’s quality, and thus the UAE will also be looking at the quality, quantity, and impact of research conducted by its colleges and universities.

I find this both fascinating and encouraging. The UAE is right to hold institutions accountable for their quality of instruction, their commitment to local communities, and for their contribution to a global society. Where I believe they are breaking new ground is in the area of research—few accrediting bodies or governmental agencies have considered the important role that conducting high-quality research can and should play on the advancement of civilization. Institutions of higher learning should not only be supporting faculty members in their professional growth and development as researchers, but programs should be developed to teach students how to become researchers in their respective fields of study. And then there’s the impact piece: It’s not enough simply to conduct research—the point is to use what is learned from the findings to trigger positive change across areas that touch multiple aspects of our lives (social, educational, medical, industrial, etc.).

As they move forward I’m sure the UAE Ministry of Education as well as governmental agencies from other nations will continue to examine and refine the criteria by which they determine the quality of their educational institutions. I would like to offer a few additional thoughts for consideration:

  • Institutions of high quality should make data-driven decisions based on a combination of both qualitative and quantitative data.
  • Data should be triangulated, with both input and output data considered.
  • Data should be collected and reviewed per an established cadence; a periodicity table should be constructed whereby specific data are collected, analyzed, reviewed, interpreted, and acted upon throughout each academic year.
  • Institutions should be making decisions and connecting long-term and short-term goals that are directly related to an interpretation of their data.
  • External stakeholders such as the UAE’s Ministry of Education should be able to easily connect the dots between each institution’s data and their vision, mission, and strategic goals.
  • The efficacy of programs should be criteria-based and performance-based.
  • A portion of an institution’s efficacy should be measured by the impact its program completers has on the lives of those they touch after graduation. For example, teachers should be able to demonstrate a positive impact on the academic achievement of their students, while healthcare providers should be able to demonstrate a positive impact on the health and wellbeing of their patients. Educational policy agencies, accrediting bodies, and institutions should collaborate in advance on a definition of what types of data would be acceptable to demonstrate this positive impact.

 

There are additional things to be considered when making judgments about an institution’s quality. However, it is vital to begin the conversation so that everyone can begin working toward a common goal: To prepare current and future generations for service to others. The extent to which we will be successful in this endeavor lies in our firm commitment to academic excellence.

 

–rrf

 

Dr. Roberta Ross-Fisher is a national leader in educator preparation, accreditation, online learning, and academic quality assurance. An accomplished presenter, writer, and educator, she currently supports higher education and P-12 schools in areas such as competency-based education, teacher preparation, distance learning, and accreditation through her company, Global Educational Consulting, LLC.

 

Is There Room for Two Accrediting Bodies in Educator Preparation?

Depending on their state’s statutes, many US educator preparation providers may soon have a choice regarding which accrediting body they want to evaluate the quality of their programs.

The Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation (AAQEP), developed primarily by an advisory council and a small team of staff members with previous accreditation experience, have finalized a process by which the quality of educator preparation providers (EPPs) will be reviewed.  If this sounds strikingly similar to the regulatory body that already serves in this capacity, that’s because it is. The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) was birthed as a result of consolidation between the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC); it became fully operational as the nation’s sole accrediting body for educator preparation providers in mid-2013.

Similar to the CAEP model, AAQEP is partnering with several state departments of education for the purpose of streamlining and codifying expectations for program quality. According to its Spring 2018 newsletter, four providers are planning for AAQEP accreditation reviews in early 2019. As part of its adopted policy, the new body recognizes the accreditation conferred by the Montessori Accreditation Council for Teacher Education, the National Association for the Education of Young Children, the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, and any accreditor recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation or by the Secretary of the United States Department of Education.

CAEP, on the other hand, is currently the only programmatic accrediting body for educator preparation that’s recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA).    It also has the benefit of being in existence for five years and has had a chance to test its policies, procedures, and evaluation framework. Numerous changes have been made during that time, mostly because of feedback from institutions that have undergone program review. While providers embrace the need for quality assurance, many have expressed frustration by a lack of consistent messaging by CAEP staff and point to a perception that key elements of the program review process have been changed with little notice or explanation. CAEP leadership indicate they are committed to improving their system and seem to be taking steps to improve communication with providers but many challenges remain.

Common Goals, Different Approaches

While each body has developed its own set of program review protocols and standards, the goal is essentially the same – to ensure that educators are fully prepared to meet the needs of students in 21st Century schools. In order to make this happen, educator preparation providers responsible for training teachers and school leaders must work closely with P-12 school districts to provide high-quality learning experiences from curriculum that is current and standards-based. Performance expectations should be high with appropriate academic support, guidance, and mentoring as needed. Subject- and grade-appropriate field and clinical experiences should play an integral role in every program, and providers should monitor the success of their program candidates as well as the success of the P-12 students being served. And finally, an overarching goal for all providers must be a deep commitment to continuous program and systematic improvement.

Standards-Based Frameworks

While both bodies rely on a standards-based framework for program review, those standards are not identical. CAEP adopted five standards designed to evaluate programs that lead to initial and advanced level teaching credentials:

  • Content and Pedagogical Knowledge
  • Clinical Partnerships and Practice
  • Candidate Quality, Recruitment, and Selectivity
  • Program Impact
  • Provider Quality, Continuous Improvement, and Capacity

AAQEP, on the other hand, bases program review on a set of four standards:

  • Completer Performance
  • Completer Professional Competence and Growth
  • Quality Program Practices
  • Program Engagement in System Improvement

 

One functional accrediting body for EPPs is enough; why would we want to add another?

Programs want options for greater individualization. Not all schools of education are created alike, and while they strive to attain the same goal of preparing teacher and school leader candidates for their careers, they enjoy a variety of missions, visions, program designs, and delivery systems. For example, a completely online program operating in multiple states may have a very different model from one serving teacher candidates in a traditional, face-to-face learning environment. One that focuses on social equity and recruits 18-22-year-olds may take a very different approach from an alternative preparation provider that recruits adult learners who already have a bachelor’s degree. In other words, while a one-size-fits-all approach to accreditation doesn’t always support a provider’s diversity or uniqueness.

There’s a risk in having only one body to judge the quality of all programs. Having a monopoly is never a good idea, regardless of the enterprise. Competition ultimately helps all stakeholders to reach higher and become better. This is also true for accrediting bodies. Professional educators, preparation providers, public stakeholders, and accrediting bodies should all have a seat at the table while making important decisions about how teachers and school leaders should be trained. To do otherwise creates a risk of well-intentioned efforts that miss the mark and fail to accomplish our shared goal, which is to:

Strengthen our nation by building a well-educated society facilitated by exceptionally prepared teachers.

 

Is there really room for two accrediting bodies in educator preparation?

Will AAQEP be recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation? Will state departments of education be eager to partner with another accrediting body?  What will be the US Department of Education’s position, given that it currently recognizes neither? If given the choice, will some educator preparation providers want to be accredited only by one body, or will they choose to be accredited by both CAEP and AAQEP? Those are all questions that remain unanswered. However, if the addition of  a new accrediting body creates a space for freedom of choice and mission-specific program review while ensuring academic excellence, how can that be a bad thing?

–rrf

 

Dr. Roberta Ross-Fisher is a national leader in education transformation, teacher preparation, and academic quality assurance. An accomplished presenter and writer, she currently supports educational institutions and non-profit agencies in areas such as educational systems design, online learning experiences, competency-based education, and accreditation. Roberta also blogs about academic excellence and can be contacted for consultations, webinars, and on-site workshops through her site (www.robertarossfisher.com). 

###

Innovation Authorizers???

Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) reintroduced a bill that would create an alternative accreditation pathway for higher education institutions. The proposed legislation, entitled S.615: Higher Education Innovation Act, would give previously unaccredited institutions access to federal financial aid under a five-year pilot program. Apparently, the conditions for students in those institutions to receive financial aid are dependent upon the extent to which the institution can demonstrate positive learner outcomes.

The text of the bill refers to what we currently call accrediting bodies as innovation authorizers. If adopted as proposed, this bill could have an impact not only on higher education institutions, but on accrediting bodies themselves.

At the time of this writing, the last action taken on this proposed bill was back on March 13, 2017, where it was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. I have no idea if the bill pick up steam and move forward or not, but there are just too many unknowns at this time to truly gauge its possible impact. I suspect there will be some hefty push back from those who support traditional models of higher education and accreditation. I’m all for innovation and this may be a step in the right direction toward addressing some of our systemic challenges, but it is important to consider all possible ramifications before cutting the steering wheel too hard. Let’s get all the stakeholders together at the table and talk this out.

–rrf

 

Dr. Roberta Ross-Fisher is a national leader in educator preparation, accreditation and academic quality assurance. She currently supports higher education and P-12 schools in areas such as competency-based education, teacher licensure, distance learning, and accreditation through her company, Global Educational Consulting, LLC.

 

 

Source: Rubio Reintroduces Accreditation Bill

Accrediting Bodies: Focus on Academics, Not $$$

Seton Hall Assistant Professor Robert Kelchen raised some interesting points in a report he wrote on the topic of accreditation and its role in today’s higher education institutions. Kelchen asserted that perhaps accrediting bodies should not focus on an institution’s financial footing as a precondition for accreditation, but rather on academic quality: whether students are receiving an excellent educational experience that will have a positive impact on their lives personally and in the workplace. Federal and state government agencies, Kelchen suggested, would be more appropriate entities to monitor and ensure each institution’s financial stability since they already submit annual reports to USDOE and their state’s coordinating board for higher education authority.

I tend to agree. As someone who has considerable experience working in the area of compliance and accreditation, I can attest that site team reviewers for a whole lot of reasons are typically ill-equipped to make judgments with confidence about an institution’s financial security. They have little time to learn as much as possible about specific standards-based academic requirements, and typically site reviewers are academic volunteers from the profession without any accounting or fiscal expertise. Besides, even if they had CPAs or the equivalent on staff, who is to say that accrediting bodies should be making decisions about how much cash on hand or in reserve each institution should have? Let them focus on how well students are prepared, and let governmental agencies responsible for authorizing institutions to operate provide guidance regarding fiscal requirements.

This is already something that needs to be fixed, and as more institutions experiment with alternative instructional models such as offering micro-credentials or individualized learning options, it will be more and more difficult for accrediting bodies to keep up. The time to reconsider the role of accreditation is now.

-rrf

 

Dr. Roberta Ross-Fisher is a national leader in educator preparation, accreditation and academic quality assurance. She currently supports higher education and P-12 schools in areas such as competency-based education, teacher licensure, distance learning, and accreditation through her company, Global Educational Consulting, LLC.

 

Source: What is the future of accreditation — and how do microcredentials impact it? | Education Dive