Volume 96 - Summer 2007	Download

President's Report by Shauna Anderson, PhD, MT(ASCP)C, CLS(NCA) President, Board of Directors

The U.S. Department of Education recently commissioned reports from the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education, the Department's Accreditation Forum, and the High Education Summit, and are looking at the possibility of regulating the accreditation process. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) has viewed these activities as threatening to the successful commitment of institutions and accreditors to work together to establish expectations of student learning and performance to make judgments about the success in relation to student achievement.

The Board of Directors of CHEA has reaffirmed its long-standing commitment to place the responsibility of student learning outcomes and program performance in the hands of individual institutions working with accrediting agencies. As you know, CHEA recognizes NAACLS as a programmatic accrediting agency. CHEA continues to advocate that institutions and accrediting agencies move aggressively to strengthen and expand their commitment to accountability and transparency in higher education.

In order to possibly avoid the federalization for accreditation, CHEA suggests the following program actions:

1. Routinely provide students and prospective students information about student learning outcomes and program performance in terms of these outcomes;
2. Regularly report aggregate information about student learning outcomes to external constituents, and
3. Supplement this information with additional evidence about the soundness of program operations and overall effectiveness with respect to mission fulfillment.

On the other hand, CHEA admonishes accrediting agencies to:

1. Establish standards, policies, and review processes that visibly and clearly expect programs to discharge their responsibilities with respect to public communication about student learning outcomes;
2. Clearly communicate to programs the fact that accredited status signifies that student achievement levels are appropriate and acceptable, and
3. Provide information about specific proficiencies or deficiencies in aggregate student academic performance.

It, therefore, behooves programs to begin to develop student learning outcomes and program assessment tools that measure these outcomes and make them available to students, future students, and the public. As program directors, we need to be creative and think beyond the typical ways to measure learning outcomes should as certification examination scores and hiring rates. Are there innovative assessment tools that will better serve as measurements?

Top of the News
			CEO's Corner Strategic Planning for NAACLS by Dianne M. Cearlock, PhD Chief Executive Officer
			Changes in Temporary Program Director Categories Affiliation Agreement Documentation by Gwen James Oriaikhi Accreditation Specialist
			NAACLS to Implement New Volunteer Recognition Program by Edward Rotchford Program Services Coordinator
Features
			Dr. NAACLS Advice for Accredited and Approved Programs
			President's Report by Shauna Anderson, PhD, MT(ASCP)C, CLS(NCA) President, Board of Directors
Other News
			A Tribute to the NAACLS Graduate Task Force
			Site Visit Schedule Fall/Winter 2007

	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