Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
You're watching the Faculty of the Mace Show, where faculty authority is promoted and protected
in the academy of the twenty-first century.
Welcome to Episode 3: Accreditation Shopping, A Rebuttal – How Does Another Accreditor
Feel?
In this episode, we look at a different perspective on accreditation shopping by another accreditor,
ACICS. First, I’d like to thank Dr. Tom Wickenden, Deputy Executive Director of ACICS,
for his thoughtful input to this discussion. In fact, this input is so important that I’ve
decided to devote an entire episode to it. I now plan to present the Faculty of The Mace
policy recommendations on accreditation shopping in Episode 4.
As you may recall, episode one defined the term accreditation shopping and presented
four good reasons for this to take place. In summary, these four reasons are:
1. Transfer of credit and acceptance of degrees. 2. Change of mission.
3. Geographic changes, and 4. Accreditor policy changes.
To this list, Dr. Wickenden has added two important components. Let’s take a look
at these: One component, now number five on our list, is mergers and acquisitions. Dr.
Wickenden points out that many corporations either own or acquire campuses that are accredited
by different accreditors. For reasons of efficiency, the corporation may desire to consolidate
its campuses under one accreditor. Dr. Wickenden points out that this can occur regardless
of differing accreditation standards among these accreditors. The other component, now
number six on our list, is somewhat more complex, but is entirely relevant to this discussion.
For lack of an accepted terminology in this area, I will call this item, “Best fit to
differing accreditation standards.”
What does this mean? Let’s take a look at what this item encompasses. Here are some
examples. Accreditation standards can differ, as follows: They can be either quantitative
or qualitative. They can be applied across-the-board, to the entire institution, or they can be
applied on a program-by-program basis. Also, they can be fixed standards or they can be
time-varying, calculated standards.
In particular, Dr. Wickenden is comparing accreditation standards between ACICS and
ACCSC. In analyzing these differences, Dr. Wickenden makes the following statement which
I would like to quote: “Other accreditors, such as ACCSC, utilize a different approach
[from ACICS], including different standards, calculated in different ways. These differences
are both numerous and complex. Therefore, if institutions seek to move from one accreditor
to another, it is because they feel that one approach is a better fit with their organizational
mission and stage of development than another, not because one agency has higher or lower
standards than another, as suggested by the testimony to the HELP Committee.”
Let’s compare, in more detail, how accreditation standards and procedures do compare between
ACICS and ACCSC: Well, both accreditors employ annual data collection and analysis.
However, ACICS employs both quantitative and qualitative standards. The quantitative standards
are applied campus-wide and are fixed percentages. Here are two examples of this: One is retention
rate, and that has a required minimum of 60 percent -- its a fixed target. Another example
is job placement rate that has a required minimum of 65 percent -- also a fixed target.
The qualitative standards and sanctions, however, are applied only to individual programs. They
are not applied campus-wide, across the entire institution. Two possible examples of qualitative
standards are: graduate and employer satisfaction, and learning outcomes.
In addition, Dr. Wickenden states that ACICS also considers demographic factors. He does
not present the details of this.
On the other hand, ACCSC employs quantitative standards. These standards are applied on
a program-by-program basis, not to the institution as a whole. Also, these standards are newly-calculated
each year. The cutoff for each standard is one standard deviation below the mean. The
mean, itself, is a calculated, moving average over time.
How do such differences in standards affect the decision to pursue accreditation with
one accreditor versus another? Let’s take a look at this. First, we’ll examine the
issue of quantitative versus qualitative standards. Here, I would like to again quote Dr. Wickenden,
as follows:
“... in some cases, qualitative standards (e.g., graduate and employer satisfaction
or learning outcomes) may be more stringent, whereas in others, quantitative standards
(e.g., graduation or placement rates) may appear to be more stringent. However, since
qualitative and quantitative standards are apples and oranges, it is difficult to say
which standards are higher.” [end quote] I agree with Dr. Wickenden that this is an
apples-to-oranges comparison, and that it would be difficult to guess which standards
would, in fact, be more stringent.
Next, we’ll examine fixed standards versus moving standards, again, quoting Dr. Wickenden:
“... ACCSC’s standards differ over time while ACICS’s standards remain a fixed target.
Due to changes over time, set percentages may be higher than the mean-adjusted standards
in some years and equal or lower than the mean-adjusted standards in other years. As
an illustration, consider the fact that placement rates are declining at present because of
the impact of the tight labor market. So, at present, the fixed percentage standard
at ACICS might be higher than the moving average minus one standard deviation at ACCSC. However,
knowing that the relative position of these standards change over time, institutions would
not choose one accreditor over the other because of the temporary relationship of their standards. Rather,
some institutions may prefer always having a fixed target to shoot for (such as ACICS’
percentages) whereas others may prefer a moving target (such as the measure that ACCSC uses)
which is tied to each year’s average rates.” [end quote] Again, I agree with Dr. Wickenden,
that an institution would be foolish to choose between accreditors based on the temporary
relationship between their standards.
Finally, Dr. Wickenden concludes, as follows:
“It should be clear from these examples that the issue is not one of shopping for
lower standards but of seeking the best fit between the institution and its accreditor.”
[end quote] It's clear from this discussion that, particularly with regard to accreditation
shopping between ACICS and ACCSC, that the following are true:
The standards between ACICS and ACCSC are generally comparable in the sense that one
agency does not have globally higher or lower standards that another.
There are technical differences between the accreditation standards used by these two
agencies. These differences are both numerous and complex.
From time to time, in certain areas, one agency’s standard may be higher or lower than another’s.
However, these differences are likely to be temporary. It would be difficult to impossible
for an institution to steer its selection of an accrediting agency based solely on relative
differences in such standards.
Before we conclude, I’d like to thank Dr. Wickenden for his insightful input. In fact,
I have invited Dr. Wickenden to be a guest on a future episode to discuss the differences
between national and regional accreditation. He has tentatively accepted, contingent on
working out the details for a remote video link between his office, in Washington, D.C.
and Studio C, in Colorado. I will provide more details as they become available.
In Episode 3, we will make policy recommendations regarding the integrity of the accreditation
process that protect both the public interest and the interest of the post -secondary educational
community itself. We will also make recommendations about how these policies should be applied
to this specific case study. How do you feel about this perspective on accreditation shopping
as discussed in this episode? Let us know by visiting: the Faculty of The Mace dot com.
There, you will find many ways to join the community and leave your feedback. Thanks
for watching! I’ll see you inside the next episode!