Quality Assurance Experiences

Barbara Brittingham, Director

Commission on Institutions of Higher Education

New England Association of Schools and Colleges

bbrittingham@neasc.org

Voice: +1 781-271-0022, ext. 347

http://www.neasc.org

Presentation Overview

I. Introduction

II. Perspective from the United States – including current debates

III. International Principles followed in Egypt

IV. Lessons Learned in Quality Assurance

Introduction

1.Being present at a launch

2.Your international expertise

Council on Higher Education: http://www.chea.org

Part I

INQAAHE

Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Botswana, Canada, Chile, China,

Columbia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France,

Germany, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,

Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, New Zealand, Nigeria Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Philippines, Poland, Portugal,

Republic of Namibia, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden,

Switzerland, Thailand, The Netherlands, Trinidad and Tobago, UAE, United Kingdom, USA, Vietnam

Accreditation in the U.S.

1.Regional Accreditation

2.National Accreditation: vocational, religious, and distance-learning-based institutions

3.Profession and specialized accreditation: programs within institutions (e.g., law, medicine, teacher education) and some free-standing institutions (e.g., art, seminaries)

Council on Higher Education: http://www.chea.org

Part II

Regional Accreditation

American Regional Accreditation

•Traces its beginnings to 1885

•Accredits entire institution

•Is a non-governmental agency

•Serves as a membership organization

•Is based on self-regulation

•Carried out as peer review system

•Relies on participation and candor

What are the basics of accreditation?

1. Self study report by the university or faculty –

•How and how well do we meet the standards?

•What are our priorities for improvement?2. Visit by a team of peer experts – and report

3. Decision by a commission of peers and the public

Based on a set of standards for universities or faculty:

Institutional mission is important

What are the Standards?

An articulation by the higher education community of what a college or university must do in

order to deserve the public trust.

A framework for institutional development and self-

evaluation.

Variety in Institutional Mission

A Sample of Public and Independent Institutions

Harvard University Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Urban College Berklee College of Music

Hartford Seminary University of New Hampshire

York County Community College Amherst College

Massachusetts College of Art Vermont Law School

Boston Architectural Center New England Institute of Art

Naval War College Hult International Business School

Maine Maritime Academy Simon’s Rock College of Bard

Johnson & Wales University American University in Bulgaria

Conway School of Landscape Design

Standards of higher

education community

Accreditation = Standards + Mission

+Mission of

the institution

evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence

What is the issue? What is the problem?

1. Quality: Whose definition?

2. How does society ensure value for:

3. Having an engine of improvement

Government

Students/families

Employers

Quality, value and improvement of education

U.S. Features that Help Define Accreditation

1. Historical: Private institutions first

2. Political: U.S. federal system and the Constitution

3. Strong tradition of voluntary associations

4. Higher education is not really a system• Decentralized • Large• Diverse• Serves a mobile society • Porous – and forgiving

“Let a thousand flowers bloom.”

Accreditation fulfills 2 functions

1. Quality assurance:

Does the institution deserve the public trust?

2. Quality improvement:

The accreditation process helps the institution become better

Benefits of the Process

1.Standards: as a framework

2.Self-study: self-knowledge, participation

3.Promotes habits of planning and review, relying on evidence

4.Requires focus on mission

5.Looks at inputs, processes, outcomes

6.Regularity of review

7.Feedback from respected peers

Voluntary: Elective on the part of institutions

With incentives

Public confidence Federal financial aid

Government grants Philanthropic grants

Transfer credits Higher degree

International student visas College guides

Employer tuition reimbursement Athletic conferences

Institutions must be licensed by the state.

Spellings Commission Report*

Undergraduate students have changed• 40% in community colleges

• 1/3 older than 24

• 40% enrolled part-time

• >50% attend more than two or more institutions before graduating

*Secretary of Education – No Ministry

What’s the Basic Issue?

1. Degrees have become more important•More (good) jobs require

degrees

•$31,000 - $50,000 = $2.1 million

•Other countries are (getting) ahead2. Cost of education has gone up

•Price increase faster than inflation

•Many loans = high student debt

Problems identified

1. Access – and need for remediation

2. Cost and affordability

3. Financial aid – complex system

4. Learning the skills employers value

5. Transparency and accountability – information and “value added”

6. Innovation – especially math, science, technology

Recommendations: Accountability

1. Consumer-friendly searchable database to compare institutions

2. Better information on cost and quality = unit record system

3. Institutions measure and report student learning*. Accreditation should make this the “core of their assessment.”

*In the skills employers value

Concerns

1. Changes in accreditation will harm a good system

2. Push for standardization will mean “one size fits all”

3. Government databases will threaten individual privacy and institutional autonomy.

4. Institutions will be judged – and funded? – on inappropriate or simple measures

Note the concern over change!

International Principles in Egypt

•Tailor the system to the country

•Learn from what others have done

•Look at institutions and programs

•Design the system to gain value

Part III

Leads to Lessons Learned

Lessons Learned in Quality Assurance

Part IV

1. Change understanding – don’t just teach the technicalities

Lessons Learned in Quality Assurance

1. Change understanding – don’t just teach the technicalities

2. Implement the change in stages

Lessons Learned in Quality Assurance

1. Change understanding – don’t just teach the technicalities

2. Implement the change in stages

3. Institutional diversity is a strength

Lessons Learned in Quality Assurance

1. Change understanding – don’t just teach the technicalities

2. Implement the change in stages

3. Institutional diversity is a strength

4. Internal evaluation must precede external evaluation

Lessons Learned in Quality Assurance

1. Change understanding – don’t just teach the technicalities

2. Implement the change in stages

3. Institutional diversity is a strength

4. Internal evaluation must precede external evaluation

5. Institutional planning is necessary for evaluation.

Lessons Learned in Quality Assurance

1. Change understanding – don’t just teach the technicalities

2. Implement the change in stages

3. Institutional diversity is a strength

4. Internal evaluation must precede external evaluation

5. Institutional planning is necessary for evaluation.

6. Begin now with student learning in mind

Lessons Learned, continued

7. Balance international standards with local conditions and aspirations

Lessons Learned, continued

7. Balance international standards with local conditions and aspirations

8. Participation is vital: all regulation is self-regulation

Lessons Learned, continued

7. Balance international standards with local conditions and aspirations

8. Participation is vital: all regulation is self-regulation

9. Institutional capacity is important.

Lessons Learned, continued

7. Balance international standards with local conditions and aspirations

8. Participation is vital: all regulation is self-regulation

9. Institutional capacity is important.

10.Candor is important – and the people in charge need to provide a “safe space”

Lessons Learned, continued

7. Balance international standards with local conditions and aspirations

8. Participation is vital: all regulation is self-regulation

9. Institutional capacity is important.

10.Candor is important – and the people in charge need to provide a “safe space”

11.CASE: “Copy and steal everything”

Lessons Learned, continued

7. Balance international standards with local conditions and aspirations

8. Participation is vital: all regulation is self-regulation

9. Institutional capacity is important.

10.Candor is important – and the people in charge need to provide a “safe space”

11.CASE: “Copy and steal everything”

12.Take on what you know are the important problems in the system – this requires courage.

Conclusion

• Congratulations

• Let us hear from you – let us learn from you