By Douglas A Wymer, Ph.D.
The second draft of the proposed Principles of Accreditation is out and it does not disappoint. I stand by my original statement that there is a lot to like in the new standards. I was recently at the SACCR annual meeting and did a presentation focused on the first draft and started that presentation with, “Everything I say might be wrong.” As it turns out, many of the areas of concern I brought up to my audience have been resolved in the second draft; however, others have arisen. Over the next little while I will write about specific elements of the new draft.
The second noteworthy change from the first to the second draft is to standard 15 (Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes). Those that have worked with me before probably reacted by saying, “We don’t assess student learning outcomes, we assess student attainment of learning outcomes!” I’ve probably said this 1,000 times in the past six years.
15. Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes. For each of its educational programs, the institution (a) identifies specific, measurable student learning outcomes which describe the knowledge, skills, or competencies students are expected to achieve upon successful completion, (b) periodically reviews program-level student-learning outcomes to ensure they remain current, relevant, and, where applicable, aligned with professional standards, licensure or certification requirements, and (c) provides examples of the periodic processes used to determine whether students are achieving the identified program outcomes.
The standard itself is straightforward and something we are all familiar with. Kind of like an old friend, loyal and true, but with some really irritating traits on the side. There are some changes in here to be aware of. Part a is as it has always been. Academic programs must have student learning outcomes that represent some discrete KSA that students need to master to be successful in the field after program completion. Part b is new, requiring some documented effort to ensure that the learning outcomes are appropriate. How can we easily demonstrate that? Well, those program advisory boards just got more important. There are, of course, other ways to demonstrate learning outcome relevancy. Part c is interesting. “…(c) provides examples of…periodic processes used to determine whether students are achieving…” Without the guidance we expect in the new Resource Manual, this part of the standard creates a universe of possibilities. I like the flexibility here, but I do hope the Resource Manual adds some guardrails.
However, there is more to this analysis. The first draft had two bits that are not part of this second draft. The first bit that has been removed is, “…grounded in direct and indirect measures…” and I am glad this is gone. It seemed a bit prescriptive and left us wondering if both were required, and if so, if both were required for each outcome, within each program, or within each cycle. You get the idea.
The second bit that has been removed is, “…inclusive of general education…”. I’ll let you sit with that for a minute. Take a look at standard 9 in the second draft. Standard 9 requires a general education curriculum that addresses “…foundational knowledge, skills, and competencies…” and is “…based on a coherent rationale…”. Most institutions I have worked with satisfy these requirements by stating that the GenEd is built around the GenEd student learning outcomes. Now, here in the second draft, the only standard focused on student attainment of learning outcomes has been changed to exclude the very learning outcomes that provide that coherent rationale and that represent the foundational knowledge, skills, and competencies that define the GenEd curriculum.
Finally, (yes I know, you thought I was done) standard 11 in the second draft requires a “…process for reviewing…transferable career competencies…”. I’ll probably do a post on standard 11 eventually, but here is my question related to this post. Is this the same thing as part b of standard 15 that requires review of the appropriateness of program learning outcomes?
Southeastern Accreditation Consultants is always interested in supporting institutions in their accreditation journey. We bring best practices, proven strategies, experienced process review, and a new online management platforms to the table. We offer individualized services to best meet your needs during the adventure to come. Contact us to get started.