Volume 93 - Spring/Summer 2006	Download

CEO's Corner Changing Attitudes Toward Accreditation by Olive M. Kimball, PhD, EdD Chief Executive Officer

In the summer of 1993 as I began my journey with NAACLS, events were taking place that would significantly impact the organization over the next few years. At that time, as now, there was much discussion and concern about the pending reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. That act originated in 1965 to focus on strengthening educational resources of colleges and universities. It also provided financial assistance to students in higher education. It has been reauthorized a number of times adding new requirements, many of them directly related to accreditation agencies recognized by USDE.

Also that summer, the NAACLS Review Board (as it was called then) opted not to carry on the tradition of being part of another accrediting body (CAHEA or later CAAHEP). I was asked to initiate the process of obtaining independent recognition by USDE for NAACLS. It was an exciting and busy process, finally culminating in full federal recognition.

Around that same time a non-governmental recognition body of higher education presidents was developing, and the Board asked that we apply for recognition from the organization that is now CHEA. That process also resulted in recognition for NAACLS as an independent specialized accrediting agency. These recognitions provided for a much broader public understanding of what NAACLS is and does.

Although later the Board decided to withdraw from recognition by USDE, the 2006 deliberations over HEA are still very important to NAACLS. This is because, over time, any changes in federal regulations will undoubtedly trickle into the non-governmental recognition processes. Therefore, NAACLS must continue its cooperative efforts with both ASPA and CHEA to influence what is best for accreditation in general and certainly for NAACLS.

Over the years there have been
many complaints lodged against both specialized and regional accreditation. While accreditation may be understood as a longstanding and pervasive feature of U.S. society and providing significant value to that society, it has often been criticized for what may be perceived as lack of accountability, a guild mentality, a focus on process versus outcomes, excessive cost, and unprepared site visitors.

In Fall of 1993 in my Executive Director's Corner (as it was then called), I listed a number of accomplishments that NAACLS had made in previous years to address some of these perceptions. NAACLS had reduced the overall length of site visits, increased emphasis on outcomes, encouraged innovation in curriculum design, and increased participation in coordinated site visits. At that point, accrediting agencies
were working more collegially together to learn from each other and to influence legislation. The improved connections with other agencies has been highly beneficial for accreditation in general and the continuing education I personally received from these colleagues was invaluable.

Over the years at NAACLS, I have had the opportunity to work closely with colleagues in ASPA and in CHEA attempting to address misperceptions and study ways of improving accreditation policies and processes. NAACLS itself has improved site visitor training and orientation, moved to electronic submission of documents, and trimmed institutional costs wherever possible.

And so it was of great interest to me to read a recent CHEA report called "College Presidents Weigh in on US Accreditation and its Evolving Process." (Available at www.chea.org) In 2005 CHEA interviewed 30 presidents of major higher education institutions to see how they valued accreditation and accountability today. The findings indicate that most of these education leaders see the accreditation process, regional and specialized, as "superior to more direct forms of governmental accountability, either federal or state." This is especially significant at this point in time when, in the latest reauthorization hearings going on there has been the suggestion that a federal agency, the National Accreditation Foundation, take over
the work of regional and specialized accreditation to achieve appropriately standardized accountability expectations.

The current activity toward reauthorization was to have occurred sometime in 2004 but is well behind schedule. Another issue causing much debate is that of drastically increased public disclosure of accreditation information. On this subject, the presidents in the CHEA study thought perhaps some increased disclosure might be warranted but had concerns that too much transparency could lead to "distortion" and "gaming" of the process.

From the study it appears that the major strengths of accreditation identified included: (1) the opportunity for self-study and reflection which might not otherwise be done; (2) a process allowing for cross-fertilization of ideas as folks get beyond their own campuses to serve on teams, and (3) an outcomes orientation. It was noted that some recent changes in accreditation practice make it more flexible and linked to planning.

Lest we think that the leaders in higher education who have often been strong vocal opponents of accreditation do not continue to have reservations, there were several voiced about the processes. There was still a 'narrowness' or guild mentality noted among a few specialized accreditors and the perception that the extent of variation among teams and team leadership hurts the consistency of the process. Accreditation is still often seen as time consuming and costly but there was the sense that the effectiveness of the process depends largely on presidential leadership at the visited institution - whether the process is seen as a burden or an opportunity.

In the 13 years I have enjoyed at NAACLS I have seen significant improvement on the part of leadership in higher education as well as the public in the understanding of what accreditation accomplishes. There have been improvements in the processes and outcomes of much of accreditation and certainly in the willingness of groups formerly at odds to now work together for change. After all, "People are the common denominator of progress."(John Kenneth Galbraith, Economic Development. 1964)

Top of the News
			CEO's Corner Changing Attitudes Toward Accreditation by Olive M. Kimball, PhD, EdD Chief Executive Officer
			NAACLS Appoints a New Chief Executive Officer by Shauna Anderson, PhD, MT(ASCP)C, CLS(NCA) President, Board of Directors
			Newly Accredited and Approved Programs April 2006
			Notification of Changes in Affiliates by Gwen James-Oriaikhi Accreditation Specialist
			President's Report by Shauna Anderson, PhD, MT(ASCP)C, CLS(NCA) President, Board of Directors
Features
			Dr. Olive Kimball Completes 13 Years at NAACLS by Joeline Dillard Davidson Past President, 1997 - 2001
			NAACLS Committee Review: by Karen Madsen Myers, MA, MT(ASCP)SC, CLS(NCA) Chair, Programs Approval Review Committee
Other News
			Dr. NAACLS Advice for Accredited and Approved Programs
			Fall/Winter 2006 Site Visit Schedule
			Introducing New Committee Members
			NAACLS Board of Directors Update
			NAACLS Graduate Task Force Continues its Work and Seeks Your Input

	Select an Issue   Vol 109 - Fall 2011 Vol 108 - Summer 2011 Vol 107 - Spring 2011 Vol 106 - Volume 106 - Fall NAACLS News Vol 105 - Summer 2010 Vol 104 - Spring 2010 NAACLS News Vol 103 - Fall 2009 NAACLS News Vol 102 - Summer 2009 Vol 101 - Spring 2009 Vol 100 - Winter 2008 Vol 99 - Summer 2008 Vol 98 - Spring 2008 Vol 97 - Winter 2007 Vol 96 - Summer 2007 Vol 95 - Spring 2007 Vol 94 - Winter 2006 Vol 93 - Spring/Summer 2006 Vol 92 - Special Edition Vol 91 - Winter 2005 Vol 90 - Fall 2005 Vol 89 - Spring/Summer 2005 Vol 87 - Fall 2004 Vol 86 - Spring/Summer 2004 Vol 85 - Fall 2003 Vol 84 - Spring/Summer 2003 Vol 83 - Winter 2003 Vol 82 - Fall 2002 Vol 81 - Spring / Summer 2002 Vol 80 - Winter 2002 Vol 79 - Fall 2001 Vol 78 - Spring / Summer 2001 Vol 77 - Winter 2001 Vol 76 - Fall 2000 Vol 75 - Spring / Summer 2000 Vol 74 - Winter 2000 Vol 73 - Fall 1999 Vol 72 - Spring / Summer 1999 Vol 71 - Winter 1999 Vol 70 - Fall 1998 Vol 69 - Spring / Summer 1998 Vol 68 - Winter 1998 Vol 67 - Fall 1997 Vol 66 - Spring 1997 Vol 65 - Winter 1996 Vol 64 - Summer 1996 Vol 63 - Spring 1996 Vol 62 - Winter 1996 Vol 61 - Summer 1995 Vol 60 - Spring 1995 Vol 59 - Fall 1994 Vol 58 - Summer 1994 Vol 57 - Spring 1994 Vol 56 - Fall 1993 Vol 55 - Summer 1993 Vol 54 - Spring 1993 Vol 53 - Fall 1992 Vol 52 - Summer 1992 Vol 51 - Spring 1992 Vol 50 - Fall 1991 Vol 49 - Summer 1991 Vol 48 - Spring 1991 Vol 47 - Fall 1990 Vol 46 - Summer 1990 Vol 45 - Spring 1990 Vol 44 - Fall 1989 Vol 43 - Summer 1989 Vol 42 - Winter 1989 Vol 41 - Fall 1988 Vol 40 - April 1988 Vol 39 - December 1987 Vol 38 - September 1987 Vol 37 - Spring 1987 Vol 36 - Winter 1987 Vol 35 - October 1986 Vol 34 - November 1985 Vol 33 - November 1984 Vol 32 - July 1984 Vol 31 - November 1983 Vol 30 - November 1982 Vol 29 - November 1981 Vol 28 - December 1980 Vol 27 - August 1980 Vol 26 - September 1979 Vol 25 - August 1979 Vol 24 - June 1979 Vol 23 - February 1979 Vol 22 - October 1978 Vol 21 - July 1978 Vol 20 - April 1978 Vol 19 - October 1977 Vol 18 - July 1977 Vol 17 - April 1977 Vol 16 - February 1977 Vol 15 - November 1976 Vol 14 - September 1976 Vol 13 - June 1976 Vol 12 - December 1975 Vol 11 - October 1975 Vol 10 - August 1975 Vol 9 - July 1975 Vol 8 - June 1975 Vol 7 - April 1975 Vol 6 - February 1975 Vol 5 - December 1974 Vol 4 - November 1974 Vol 3 - September 1974 Vol 2 - August 1974 Vol 1 - June 1974