Specialized Accreditation–Gary Responds a college(purpose again)

Subject: RE: Follow up (1 of 2)

Thanks again for your explanation,  Gary – I look forward to participating!

Subject: RE: Follow up (1 of 2)

The good news is that almost all professional accrediting organizations are working with CHEA and the regional accreditors to align the work so that when a program satisfies one it satisfies all.  As Larry and I explained in our meetings this summer (and will when we meet with you and your team soon), a key goal of ours is to develop a system that is similarly efficient.  The not so good news is that the Northwest Commission and ACPE may or may not be there just yet (I don’t know), and we may have additional work to do in order to meet the fall 2010 goals we have assumed in the face of the challenge to implement an institutional assessment system.  Part of what we’re now exploring is an assessment strategy that will, among other things, help us find out.  (You may have seen the report in the Chronicle last week, by the way, about some of the relationships between professional accreditors and the challenges they now face.)

In short, though, your personal bias – that we build a sustainable process – is precisely what we are hoping to do–implement something that is systematic, meets multiple audiences, and, most importantly, is about teaching and learning improvements. If faculty don’t see the value of assessment in their daily work, then it will not be sustainable or, ultimately, useful.

Subject: RE: Follow up (1 of 2)

Hi Gary,
Thanks for the explanation – I will be learning as we go – from a large university perspective.  Recognizing that my college just completed a rigorous professional accreditation evaluation by my professional accrediting agency and received a full 6 year accreditation – how will our efforts and experience play into the big picture of university accreditation?  I imagine there are other professional programs at WSU who have similar professional academic standards they are required to meet?

My personal bias is that we should create an assessment tool which provides important data/information and includes a sustainable process for programmatic and curricular assessment.  This may be a premature opinion since I haven’t reviewed anything yet for this project, but for programs who have already demonstrated that they are on track with assessment (such as through professional accreditation), I am not in favor of having them re-generate or ‘re-do’ tasks for the sole purpose of assessment.  Does that make sense?

Thanks,