Achieving accreditation is getting more and more complex for higher education institutions worldwide. The increasing pressure of governments and the market itself are moving universities to higher standards of accreditation.
The New America Foundation stands that “as the cost of college has skyrocketed and as the federal government’s investment in student aid has increased dramatically, policymakers and others have begun to ask what students, the government and taxpayers are getting for such a large investment (…). Given accreditation’s role as the “gatekeeper” for the federal student aid system, the system’s ability or inability to ensure a basic level of quality is of concern to many.”
In this way, accreditation processes are also getting more complex and require real and significant evidence of higher education excellence at every level. That’s why assessment and strategic planning are so important for universities.
We’ve already talked about key factors, essential metrics and best practices in strategic planning, and also how it helps in accreditation processes. Now, we would like to take a look back at the beginning of an assessment process, into the guidelines, in order to analyze which are the right and better ones for a higher education accreditation process.
One of the primary issues that has to be absolutely clear is what the institution is going to measure. Nowadays, nearly everything is measurable and there are tools for any kind of analysis. But not all of them are suitable for universities. As The National Academy for Academic Leadership (NAAL) says, “outcome assessment does not by itself produce enough evidence to permit a thorough understanding of the behavior of an educational system. Outcome assessment indicates what results have been produced and how much of them.”
“Determining why the results were achieved – NAAL adds – is the task of process assessment. Improving the quality of results depends on improving the quality of processes. Thus, outcome assessment is not enough. In the case of learning and student development, a detailed understanding of the functioning of orientation, curriculum, instruction, academic advising and other key educational processes is necessary for the maximal improvement of institutional results. In other words, the results of both outcome and process assessment are needed to improve the quality of outcomes.”
“Learning goals may vary according to an institution’s mission, resources, student population and community setting, but they typically include acquiring both, broad learning and specialized knowledge; developing intellectual and practical skills; developing a sense of personal and social responsibility; and integrating and applying learning”, The New Leadership Alliance for Student Learning and Accountability (NLASLA) explains.
“The outcomes reflect appropriate higher education goals and are stated in a way that allows levels of achievement to be assessed against an externally informed or benchmarked level of achievement or assessed and compared with those of similar institutions,” The NLASLA says.
“Systematic processes for gathering evidence – The NLASLA stands – allow colleges and universities to discover how well students are progressing towards the institution’s overall and programmatic learning outcomes. Evidence gathering efforts that are ongoing, sustainable and integrated into the work of faculty and staff can suggest where the institution is succeeding and where improvement is needed.”
According to The New Leadership Alliance, “reporting evidence and results of student learning to both internal and external constituents strengthens the institution’s commitment to improving programs and services that contribute to a high level of student accomplishment.”
Even more, this institution states that the university’s governing board “should receive regular reports about the assessment of student learning and efforts to use evidence to improve programs. In addition, the institution can ensure transparency and accountability to the public by developing on its website a highly visible and easily accessible location that highlights evidence of student learning, its use and other institutional indicators.”
On the other hand, most higher education institutions have developed guidelines manuals to lead and align individual and collective tasks to the final accreditation and excellence goals. For example, The New England Association of School and Colleges has recently updated its Standards for Accreditation manual, where they propose a very clear and easy-to-follow assessment structure:
Are there other important standards that should be considered, according to your experience? These guidelines must be the same for universities of all kind, or should it be differentiated between, for example, public and private institutions? We invite you to share your opinion and points of view.