Higher education: Waking up to the importance of accreditation

Wergin, J.F. (2005). Higher education: Waking up to the importance of accreditation. Change, 37(3), 35-41.

Overview of the current role of accreditation as “…the only organized means by which the academy provides quality assurance to the larger public” (p. 35). Explains that accrediting bodies have conflicting interests in trying to assure the public the quality of institutions while at the same time maintaining strong ties with their member institutions. Examines the shift of “quality” as what an institution has (inputs and resources) to the current view of what it does (processes and outcomes), which makes measurement more difficult. AQIP proves to be a promising alternative to the traditional decennial accreditation process as the “…focus shifts in this model from strict compliance with external standards to a much more internally driven, systemic approach to quality assurance” (p. 39). While political forces demand greater transparency and comparability, it is important to honor the differences between institutions. In addition, a balance should be found between internal and external accountability measures. Furthermore, some caution should be exercised avoiding an overemphasis on student outcomes as to avoid assessment for assessment’s sake.

Follow-up

• The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (http://www.chea.org)/

Higher education reauthorization: The debate continues

Lovett, C.M. (2005). Higher education reauthorization: The debate continues. Change, 37(3), 6-7.

Editorial introducing a series of articles in the May/June 2005 edition of Change that focus on accreditation. Provides context for the current interest in accreditation with the 2004 legislation to reauthorize the 1965 Higher Education Act. Describes that legislators used to listen to a very specific “public” regarding higher education – upper-income families who assumed they would send their children to college. Explains that a broader public now demands to be heard – middle-income families who are distrustful of higher education giving rising costs and adults in low-income families who need higher education to succeed in the workplace. Given the demands of this new “public,” legislators are calling for greater accountability, and are relying on the one consistent source of information readily available about higher education institutions: accreditation.

Follow-up:

• May/June 2005 edition of Change
  
• 1965 Higher Education Act
  

Creating the resilient community college

Mellow, G.O. & Talmadge, R.A. (2005). Creating the resilient community college. Change, 37(3), 58-66.

Presents a snapshot of the organizational change process at _LaGuardia Community College. Indicates that data-collection is a necessary first step for realistic assessment of challenges, and that highly participatory structures and effective communication are essential. Claims that a “crisis” is not necessary to motivate change, provided that effective strategies are utilized to engage faculty and staff: involving the whole system, creating new structures, tackling difficult issues, supporting faculty/staff leadership, publicly framing issues and decisions, and sustaining change. Indicates the importance of student and external stakeholder participation in the change process. Describes the importance of having a single point of contact leading organizational change efforts, and having that point of contact work in the President’s Office to give credibility and demonstrate the College’s commitment to organizational change.

Follow-up:

• determine how the college is using Baldridge criteria to establish key indicators of institutional effectiveness and review performance bi-weekly
• interview Senior Assistant to the President for Organizational Change