Selena M. Grace, President, NWCCU

Thank you for the warm congratulations, support, and confidence you’ve shown me. I’m excited to continue our work together in this new role. While I’ve collaborated closely with many of you over the past several years, I look forward to working with those I haven’t yet had the opportunity to partner with directly. I’m eager to engage with each member institution to better understand how NWCCU can enhance our support for your work – advancing innovation, delivering quality educational programming, and ensuring student success. NWCCU has always prided itself on being a true partner in continuous improvement while honoring each institution’s unique mission. I’m committed to building on that foundation. This issue of The Beacon includes several important updates I’d like to share. 

Following last week’s NWCCU Board of Commissioners meeting, we have several significant updates to share. You’ll find comprehensive details throughout this issue of The Beacon, but I’d like to draw your attention to a few critical developments. 

For the 2026 fiscal year, there will not be an increase in member dues. The current dues and fees will remain the same and can be found on our website. The Board of Commissioners are mindful of the financial challenges facing our member institutions. 

We welcomed three new Commissioners, all elected by the membership, as well as confirming two Commissioners for second terms. Please be sure to read more about them on our website.  

The Board of Commissioners approved removing the pilot designation for the accelerated bachelor’s degrees currently being offered by Brigham Young University-Idaho and Ensign College. In addition, they approved allowing institutions to submit substantive changes proposals to offer bachelor’s degrees based on students’ achieving specific learning outcomes rather than a specified credit hour amount. This will fall under NWCCU’s Substantive Change policy and process. You can find more details about this in our newsletter. 

The Commission also established a standing Ad Hoc Strategic Pathways committee of the Commission. Stay tuned for more information coming from that committee and their work. 

Finally, I’m pleased to announce that Dr. Ed Harri has been appointed and has accepted the role of Executive Vice President of NWCCU. We’re confident he will continue to serve NWCCU and our members with the same excellence he’s always demonstrated. This means that we will immediately launch a search for our next senior vice president. During this interim time, Dr. Harri will maintain his portfolio of institutions, and those institutions who were in my portfolio will be distributed among the current senior vice presidents. If you are in my portfolio, you will be hearing from me early next week regarding these changes. Our goal is to ensure as little disruption as possible while maintaining the strong support you are used to. 

I’ll be reaching out to each of our member institutions in the coming months, but please don’t wait – contact me anytime with questions, concerns, or ideas about how we can enhance our support. 

The post V7I4: Letter from the President appeared first on NWCCU.

Jeff Fox, Interim President, NWCCU

NWCCU’s theme for the annual conference scheduled for this fall is “Reimagine Education.” This topic is as timely as it gets. In the current political climate, reimagining requires a broad consideration, and it is an opportunity to reconsider aspects of our great work in serving students through teaching, outcomes, assessment, evaluation, support systems, staffing, facilities, pedagogy, and more.   

Higher education is no stranger to external political pressures and political influence from one administration to the next. The Department of Education is a relatively new federal cabinet-level department, having been signed into law in 1979 by President Carter. While the news regarding the department lately is grave, for the nearly four decades I have been in higher education as a teacher or as an administrator, I have marveled at how the core of our work in educating students has stayed constant despite the political pressures that come as regularly as the steady swing of a pendulum. Though higher education has remained steady, it has not remained static, and what has changed over the years is how we have improved the work of educating our students. 

These days, we are better at assessment and gathering and using data to inform improved instruction and curriculum. We understand our students more effectively as we now gather demographic data to better understand areas in need of improvement for recruiting, retention, and graduation. We have structured our institutions to improve service to our students, developing traditional and hybrid instruction, always evaluating and implementing appropriate technologies, including these days, Artificial Intelligence (AI). We have improved curricula to reflect the foundation and evolution of post-secondary education while at the same time learning to adjust and incorporate new technologies, new opportunities, new expectations in research and in the workforce.  

In the midst of this chaos, the defunding of key initiatives, the impending cuts to the Department of Education (and its possible closure), we must stand firm in the belief that what we do and how we do it matters. My predecessor at the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, Sonny Ramaswamy, in a recent interview noted that we in higher education must be engaged.  

But before whatever it is that’s coming down the pike, let us as educators, let us as accreditors demonstrate that value proposition [and] tell the story. Don’t wait. Get college presidents, students and alumni to speak to the value of higher education.

Will this be enough in the face of the daily and surprising changes we face? I hope our good work and our dedication to possibly the best higher education system in the world and its results—highly-educated, productive and engaged citizens—are more than enough to stand firm.  

Considering reimagining education, then, is an opportunity to stay the course as best we can when it is appropriate, and to review and revise our systems and resources with an eye to the future even if it may not be any future we could have imagined until recently. As the cuts to program funds, grants, and even the Department of Education happen and as the lawsuits pile up to challenge these moves, we must advocate for our mission as we reimagine education. We have a powerful and important story to tell, and we must tell it. 

Postscript 

I want to personally acknowledge the work Sonny Ramaswamy performed in his role as the President of NWCCU. He has been a tireless advocate for higher education and a champion for the work of regional accreditation. In his time with the Commission, he was positively innovative and inspirational.  

The post V7I3: Letter from the President appeared first on NWCCU.

Sonny Ramaswamy, President, NWCCU

Institutions that have developed innovative and intentional strategies to promote student success and close achievement gaps have discovered that it takes a portfolio of student-centered, comprehensive, adaptable, data- and evidence-informed approaches. In addition, they frame outcomes from the student’s perspective, i.e., focusing on what the student needs and will be able to do. Such approaches require the collaborative commitment and engagement of every member of the institution to identify and solve the challenges facing institutions and accreditation.

In a gist, highly successful institutions undertake their work by being student-centered and data-informed. 

Data-informed approaches are where decisions are made after considering data as well as the knowledge, experience, and insights of the relevant stakeholders. Rather than allowing data to control everything, there’s the human element to decision-making. 

In contrast, data-driven approaches are where the numbers or metrics are tested and analyzed, and decisions come down to what the cold numbers suggest.   

Data-informed approaches are transformational, whereas data-driven approaches tend to be transactional.   

Successful institutions have discovered that empowering faculty, staff, students, and other relevant stakeholders to own and be trained to use data, thus, democratizing data, are contributing to significant gains in promoting student success and closing equity gaps. Institutions of higher education, including NWCCU members, have capitalized on disaggregated evidence- and data-informed approaches, predictive analytics, and other digital tools to promote student success and close achievement gaps. Along the lines of the transformative, data-informed, continuous improvement approaches to promote student success, NWCCU is helping its member institutions identify benchmark quantitative and qualitative student achievement indicators in comparison with peer institutions at the regional and national levels.   

Similarly, student-centered approaches include high-impact practices, such as intrusive advising, experiential learning opportunities, inculcating a combination of technical, cognitive skills, along with the non-cognitive, core competencies, such as critical thinking, problem solving, and communication skills, combined with single-minded use of data-informed predictive analytics and other digital tools, which are key to promoting student success. In addition to academic support, advancing student success requires that students, particularly those from marginalized and underserved communities, are provided help with financial aid, just-in-time grants, supportive social networks, food, housing, child- and health-care support, and mental health counseling.    

Student-centered approaches also rely on promotion of community and group interactions. The key to success is that the institutions have created inclusive teaching and learning approaches that incorporate student voices by paying attention to student needs and tailoring courses, course offerings, and programs to the needs of the individual student, each one a unique individual with a unique background and unique learning style.  

Aligned with the above, the theme for the recently concluded NWCCU 2024 Annual Conference was Student-Centered, Data-Informed. Although the Bomb Cyclone on Tuesday, November 19, caused significant physical damage to infrastructure in Seattle, King County, and environs and contributed to flight delays into Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, almost 550 registrants joined us during the conference.   

The conference included a veritable intellectual and gastronomic feast of keynote and plenary speeches, pre-conference workshops, concurrent sessions, and a variety of delicious foods.   

Programming on Wednesday, November 20, included a commission meeting and an annual meeting for NWCCU member institutions, along with hands-on learning workshops on peer evaluation, assessment, peer comparators, planning and governance, mission fulfilment, prison education, and use of data to promote student success and close equity and achievement gaps. The luncheon speaker was Tim Renick, Senior Vice President for Student Success and Professor of Religious Studies at Georgia State University, who spoke about Eliminating Achievement Gaps Through Data and Institutional Change. Later in the afternoon, a special Presidential Workshop entitles, Academic Leadership in the Context of Change, hosted for NWCCU member institutional leaders included several sessions. The American Council on Education’s Jonathan Fansmith gave an overview of the outcomes of the General Elections and what to expect from the incoming administration; AGB’s Monica Burton spoke about leadership; and Eastern Washington University Professor and NWCCU Commissioner and Vice Chair Scott Finnie spoke about the compelling rationale for focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion.    

Much of the hallway and networking chatter was on the Bomb Cyclone and the weather, but more importantly was on the outcome of the General Elections and the potential impacts on higher education. So, I decided to say something about the latter as I welcomed the almost 550 registrants to the Opening Plenary Session on Thursday, November 21.   

I reminded the audience that rather than focusing on what may or may not come to pass in the next few years, higher education and accreditation should focus on its compelling value proposition: Student Success and Closing Achievement Gaps.    

Then I read excerpts of a poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson, The Brook, which I recalled as being apropos to the times and which I had read as a primary (elementary) school child growing up in India. I particularly reread and emphasized the repetitive ending of several of the verses, including the very last verse “For men may come and men may go, But I go on for ever.”   

The Brook 
Alfred Lord Tennyson 

I come from haunts of coot and hern,  
I make a sudden sally  
And sparkle out among the fern,  
To bicker down a valley.  

By thirty hills I hurry down,  
Or slip between the ridges,  
By twenty thorpes, a little town,  
And half a hundred bridges.  

Till last by Philip’s farm I flow  
To join the brimming river,  
For men may come and men may go,  
But I go on for ever.  
  
I chatter over stony ways,  
In little sharps and trebles,  
I bubble into eddying bays,  
I babble on the pebbles.  
  
With many a curve my banks I fret  
By many a field and fallow,  
And many a fairy foreland set  
With willow-weed and mallow.  
  
I chatter, chatter, as I flow  
To join the brimming river,  
For men may come and men may go,  
But I go on for ever.  
  
I wind about, and in and out,  
With here a blossom sailing,  
And here and there a lusty trout,  
And here and there a grayling,  
  
And here and there a foamy flake  
Upon me, as I travel  
With many a silvery waterbreak  
Above the golden gravel,  
  
And draw them all along, and flow  
To join the brimming river  
For men may come and men may go,  
But I go on for ever.  
  
I steal by lawns and grassy plots,  
I slide by hazel covers;  
I move the sweet forget-me-nots  
That grow for happy lovers.  
  
I slip, I slide, I gloom, I glance,  
Among my skimming swallows;  
I make the netted sunbeam dance  
Against my sandy shallows.  
  
I murmur under moon and stars  
In brambly wildernesses;  
I linger by my shingly bars;  

I loiter round my cresses;  

And out again I curve and flow  
To join the brimming river,  
For men may come and men may go,  
But I go on for ever. 

The repetitive ending to several verses, “For men may come and men may go, But I go on for ever,” was an excellent reminder that administrations may come and go and regulations may come and go, but the business of higher education and accreditation goes on forever, because our Nation needs a well-educated, informed, and contributing citizenry to ensure our democracy thrives. And, members of the higher education community, including accreditors, must focus on the destination, i.e., student success and closing achievement gaps, as I stated in an essay in a recent issue of The Beacon on the landscape of higher education and accreditation. My reminder of the raison d’etre of higher education with the metaphorical line from The Brook was well received and, indeed, several asked me for a link to the poem. 

The topical plenaries and keynotes on Thursday, November 21, and Friday, November 22, engendered significant discussion, reflection, and discussions. The speakers included Toby Jenkins, Associate Provost for Faculty Development, University of South Carolina (Mining Culture for New Perspectives on Leadership); Hether Danforth, Vice President, US Academics, Microsoft (Building the Future: Student Empowerment and Success through AI-Driven Education); Jeff Strohl, Director, Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce (Thoughts on a New Education Model to Navigate Future Challenges Facing Post-Secondary Education); Michael Itzkowitz, President and Founder, The HEA Group (Postgraduation Socioeconomic Outcomes: Has American Higher Education Delivered on the Promise);  Torrey Trust, Professor of Learning Technology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst (AI and the Future of Higher Education); and Doug Lederman, Cofounder and Editor, Inside Higher Ed (Making the Case for Higher Education and Acknowledging Its Shortcomings).   

The Awards Luncheon on Thursday, November 21, included recognition of the winners of the Beacon Award for Excellence in Student Success and Achievement. Three institutions were recognized, including the University of Puget Sound (Freedom Education Project Puget Sound), Nightingale College (MyNightingale), and Western Washington University (Western Success Scholars Program). The 2024 Beacon Award winners will be spotlighted in the March 2025 issue of The Beacon.   

During the Awards Luncheon, we also recognized and extended our sincere gratitude to our peer evaluators for their invaluable work. As was noted in the recognition, their dedication and expertise are critical to promoting excellence in higher education and accreditation. In addition, graduates of the Mission Fulfillment Fellowship and Data Equity Fellowship were recognized for their accomplishments.   

The conference included a number of concurrent sessions on extant topics apropos to the conference theme, Student-Centered, Data-Informed, on Thursday, November 21, and Friday, November 22, proposed by our member institutions and included, for example: Empowering Real-Time Data-Driven Decision-Making in Higher Education; Continuous Innovation for Continuous Improvement: Weaving a Data Web to Inform Student Success Initiatives; Updating Institutional Student Learning Outcomes: A College-Wide Effort to Measure Student Success; Qualitative Assessment for Inquiry; Shaping Program Learning Assessment; Strategic Use of Data to Support Institutional Change; Igniting Change Through Statewide Generative AI Collaborations; Leveraging Learning Analytics; and Data Informed Educational Programming.   

Apropos to the extant, fraught conversations on academic freedom and other topics in America, the closing plenary was provided by Eduardo M. Peñalver, President of Seattle University, on the topic of Viewpoint Diversity for Higher Education Institutions.   

Preliminary analysis of feedback from the attendees suggests that the workshops, concurrent sessions, and plenary speeches were highly regarded as being topical and of relevance. In addition, the topics related to the theme of the conference—Student-Centered, Data-Informed—and quality of speakers were viewed as offering grist to be addressed back on the campuses of member institutions for work related to promoting student success and closing achievement gaps. The location, organization, networking breaks, food and beverages, and reception, including the musical entertainment, were viewed as being very good to excellent. 

As we wrapped up the conference, I thanked the excellent speakers, our outstanding staff, the extremely helpful hotel staff, and last, but not least, the sponsors, including the Craft Education System, The Registry, AGB Search, BibliU, Populi, SPOL, Gardner Institute, Territorium, Nuventive, and Watermark.   

I invoked the repetitive verse, For men may come and men may go, But I go on for ever, from The Brook and reminded the attendees to focus on the raison d’etre of higher education, i.e., student success and achievement, and wished them safe travels.    

Reminded of Winston Churchill’s admonition, “This is no time for ease and comfort. It is time to dare and endure,” I stated that we need to reimagine and reengineer higher education, and I looked forward to welcoming them back for the 2025 Annual Conference with the theme: Reimagine Education. 

The post V7I2: Letter from the President appeared first on NWCCU.

Sonny Ramaswamy, President, NWCCU

“Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.” Winston Churchill

The mantra we read about in scholarly journals, newspapers and other media, and books or hear about in panel discussions and keynotes at conferences, in hearings at the United States Congress, and during discussions at the United States Department of Education, is of higher education’s critical role in promoting student success and closing equity gaps. In recent years, state funding has been tied to student outcomes, via performance-based budget models.

In my experience, the recipe for promoting student success includes a suite of approaches that advance community and group interactions to ensure student achievement and outcomes. This includes focusing on the fundamentals of education and high-impact practices – intrusive advising, offering experiential learning opportunities and inculcating technical, cognitive skills along with non-cognitive, core competencies, such as critical thinking, problem solving, and communication skills – combined with single-minded use of data-informed predictive analytics and other digital tools. In addition to academic support, advancing student success will require that students, particularly those from marginalized and underserved communities, are provided help with financial aid, just-in-time grants, supportive social networks, food, housing, child- and health-care support, and mental health counseling. These latter supportive efforts should be focused, not just on students from particular racial or ethnic groups, but on ALL students requiring the same, so as to promote access, belonging, and success, which can help further democratize higher education and contribute to the well-being of our democracy.

Postsecondary institutions that have made demonstrable and significant progress in promoting student success, particularly amongst students from marginalized and disadvantaged communities, take a purposeful approach to advancing student success, which includes many, if not all, of the practices I have listed above.

We have learned in recent years that highly successful institutions use explicit and well-defined student learning outcomes, rubrics, and assessments, where learning outcomes and assessment are part of a continuous improvement process, i.e., the assessment cycle, which includes a multistep, cyclical process of, for example, identifying goals, designing processes, assessing, implementing, collecting and analyzing data, evaluating, synthesizing reports and sharing, and using the knowledge to promote continuous improvement. These learning outcomes and assessments are undertaken at the course, programmatic, and institutional level.

Student learning outcomes are the specified knowledge, skills, abilities or attitudes that students are expected to attain by the end of a learning experience or program of study.

Assessments are a series of activities designed to test student competence in the learning outcomes of a course or program, while supporting students to improve their learning. Assessments are also used to inform instructors of the effectiveness of their teaching practices. There are three types of assessment: diagnostic (use of pre- and post-tests to evaluate student knowledge before and after going through a course or program), formative (use of ungraded or low-stakes activities), and summative (use of graded assignments).

Rubrics are statements that articulate the expectations by listing criteria for what is particularly important and by describing levels of quality on a defined scale.

Defining and using learning outcomes and assessment in support of student success efforts are becoming more common as institutions collect and use student learning outcomes data and assessment instruments for continuous improvement. These efforts have been driven externally by state and federal governments, accreditors, and other third-party interests. Internally these efforts have been driven by college and university administrators. What is needed, however, is more faculty engagement and involvement in establishing and assessing student learning outcomes is essential.

The suboptimal faculty involvement in use of learning outcomes and assessment, reminded me of my experience a few years ago. This is the gist of my conversation, recreated from memory and with license, with a professor at an unnamed institution of higher learning about student learning outcomes and assessment:

Me: Do you define student learning outcomes and assess achievement of the same in the courses you teach?

Prof: Oh yeah, of course. During the very first class at the beginning of the term, in the course syllabus handout, I specify the course objectives, term paper and other requirements, and also provide the dates for quizzes, midterms, and final exams. I also inform the students I may include surprise quizzes.

Me: Hmm. How do you know the students have developed the knowledge required in your course and the discipline and that they’re able to think critically and solve problems, rather than rote-learn facts and technical content?

Prof: Hmph. I don’t worry if the students have gained the knowledge and can think critically. To me what’s important is they know the facts. Without the facts, they can’t go further.

Me: But …, aren’t you concerned they may not develop the depth of disciplinary knowledge that would allow them to be successful? And, how do you know if student learning is improving?

Prof: No, that’s not for me to be concerned about in my course. It’s an administrative requirement, which may be for the program coordinator, department chair, or dean to be concerned about. I am just too busy.

Me: Shouldn’t you as a professor be concerned about student learning and be able to compare year to year and with other sections of the course being taught by other professors?

Prof: Like I said, it’s for the administrators to be concerned with. I am here to teach my courses and do my scholarly research. I just do not have the time to do what you are talking about.

The above is in many ways reflective of the disconnect between the boots-on-the-ground course instructor and the institutional level efforts to promote learning outcomes and assessment at the course and program level driven by external requirements imposed by accreditors and government agencies.

Indeed, in querying data for our NWCCU member institutions that went through our Year-Seven, comprehensive Evaluation of Institutional Effectiveness during Fall 2022, Spring 2023, Fall 2023, and Spring 2024 peer evaluation seasons, approximately 75 percent received Recommendations related to Standards 1.C.5 and 1.C.7.

Specifically, NWCCU’s Standards for Accreditation related to Student Learning, which focus on student learning outcomes and assessment, include:

• 1.C.1 The institution offers programs with appropriate content and rigor that are consistent with its mission, culminate in achievement of clearly identified student learning outcomes (emphasis added here and below in italics) that lead to collegiate-level degrees, certificates, or credentials and include designators consistent with program content in recognized fields of study.
• 1.C.2 The institution awards credit, degrees, certificates, or credentials for programs that are based upon student learning and learning outcomes that offer an appropriate breadth, depth, sequencing, and synthesis of learning.
• 1.C.3 The institution identifies and publishes expected program and degree learning outcomes for all degrees, certificates, and credentials. Information on expected student learning outcomes for all courses is provided to enrolled students.
• 1.C.4 The institution’s admission and completion or graduation requirements are clearly defined, widely published, and easily accessible to students and the public.
• 1.C.5 The institution engages in an effective system of assessment to evaluate the quality of learning in its programs. The institution recognizes the central role of faculty to establish curricula, assess student learning, and improve instructional programs.
• 1.C.6 Consistent with its mission, the institution establishes and assesses, across all associate and bachelor level programs or within a General Education curriculum, institutional learning outcomes and/or core competencies. Examples of such learning outcomes and competencies include, but are not limited to, effective communication skills, global awareness, cultural sensitivity, scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical analysis and logical thinking, problem solving, and/or information literacy.
• 1.C.7 The institution uses the results of its assessment efforts to inform academic and learning-support planning and practices to continuously improve student learning outcomes.

During the last few years, NWCCU has offered a series of workshops and webinars to support our institutions develop and deploy effective learning outcomes and assessment, such as, for example, the Spring 2023 webinar entitled, Best Practices in Assessment, and the Mission Fulfilment Fellowship, which is in its sixth year of existence and has “graduated” over 150 Fellows. In addition, we have provided resources on demystifying our Standards related to assessment.

Prospectively, NWCCU will create a series of coordinated efforts to support our member institutions to meet or exceed the Standards related to student learning, cited above, including workshops, webinars, training, feedback, mentoring, and other resources and materials.

For example, in the first of a series through the next few years, at NWCCU’s upcoming 2024 Annual Conference, November 20-22, Jillian Kinzie, Associate Director, National Survey of Student Engagement, Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, will present a day-long workshop for faculty and institutional leaders. Dr. Kinzie will focus on actionable approaches to program-level learning outcomes assessment, with an emphasis on equitable, student-centered assessment practices. The intent is to connect program-level assessment with both course-level and institution-level learning outcomes assessment (Standards 1.C.3, 1.C.5, 1.C.6) and help teams design processes to meaningfully use assessment results for improvement of student learning (Standard 1.C.7).

In addition, henceforth, starting with this issue of The Beacon, our intent is to spotlight articles on student learning outcomes and assessment by national experts, along with articles on best practices and how-to, written by representatives from NWCCU member institutions.

For example, in this issue of The Beacon three institutions that participated in NWCCU’s Mission Fulfilment Fellowship, Shoreline Community College, College of Southern Nevada, and College of Southern Idaho, share their experiences in developing and deploying learning outcomes and assessment to improve student achievement and success on their respective campuses.

We hope that the combination of articles and workshops are helpful for our member institutions to develop learning outcomes- and assessment-informed approaches to promote student success.

Postscript:

After I wrote my essay on student learning outcomes and assessment, I decided on querying OpenAI’s GPT-4, the generative artificial intelligence (AI) application.

GPT-4’s response to my query “What should I take into consideration as I develop student learning outcomes, rubrics, and assessments?” is copied and pasted below verbatim:

When developing student learning outcomes (SLOs), rubrics, and assessments, there are several key considerations to ensure they are effective, meaningful, and aligned with both educational goals and student needs. Here’s what you should take into account:

1. Alignment with Program Goals and Institutional Mission

• Coherence: Ensure that SLOs align with the broader goals of the program, department, and institution. Each outcome should contribute to the overall educational objectives.
• Curriculum Integration: Consider how each SLO fits within the course sequence or curriculum map. Outcomes should be integrated and scaffolded across courses to build skills progressively.

2. Clarity and Precision

• Specificity: SLOs should be clearly articulated, using precise language that leaves no room for ambiguity. Avoid vague terms like “understand” or “learn” and use action verbs that are observable and measurable, such as “analyze,” “design,” or “evaluate.”
• Student-Centered: Frame outcomes from the student’s perspective, focusing on what the student will be able to do, rather than what the instructor will cover.

3. Measurability

• Assessable: Ensure that each SLO can be effectively measured through assessments. The outcomes should lend themselves to evaluation through exams, projects, presentations, etc.
• Quantitative and Qualitative Measures: Consider using a mix of both quantitative (e.g., test scores) and qualitative (e.g., portfolio reviews) measures to capture the full range of student learning.

4. Cognitive Complexity (Bloom’s Taxonomy)

• Diverse Cognitive Levels: Use Bloom’s Taxonomy as a guide to ensure that SLOs cover a range of cognitive levels—from basic knowledge and comprehension to higher-order thinking skills like analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
• Appropriate Challenge: Ensure that outcomes are appropriately challenging for the level of the course or program, encouraging students to advance in their learning.

5. Inclusivity and Equity

• Accessibility: Ensure that SLOs and assessments are designed with all students in mind, considering different learning styles, abilities, and backgrounds. Avoid language or expectations that might exclude or disadvantage certain groups.
• Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Incorporate UDL principles to create multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression, allowing all students to demonstrate their learning effectively.

6. Rubric Development

• Clear Criteria: Develop rubrics with clear, specific criteria that describe varying levels of performance (e.g., excellent, proficient, needs improvement). Each criterion should be directly tied to the SLOs.
• Consistency and Fairness: Ensure that rubrics provide a consistent and fair method for evaluating student work. Rubrics should be applied uniformly across all students and assignments.
• Transparency: Share rubrics with students in advance so they understand the expectations and can use them as a guide for their work.

7. Variety of Assessment Methods

• Multiple Modes: Use a variety of assessment methods (e.g., exams, projects, presentations, peer reviews) to capture different aspects of student learning and accommodate diverse learning styles.
• Formative and Summative Assessments: Incorporate both formative assessments (ongoing, low-stakes assessments like quizzes or draft reviews) to monitor progress and summative assessments (final projects or exams) to evaluate overall achievement of SLOs.
• Authentic Assessments: Whenever possible, use assessments that simulate real-world tasks or challenges relevant to the discipline, providing meaningful context for students.

8. Feedback and Improvement

• Actionable Feedback: Design assessments that provide students with meaningful, actionable feedback that they can use to improve their learning and performance.
• Continuous Improvement: Use assessment results to refine and improve SLOs, rubrics, and teaching practices. Assessment should be part of a continuous feedback loop that enhances the educational experience.

9. Scalability and Manageability

• Feasibility: Ensure that the number of SLOs and the associated assessments are manageable for both instructors and students. Overly complex or numerous outcomes can lead to assessment fatigue and diminish the quality of evaluation.
• Resource Availability: Consider the resources available, such as time, technology, and support services, when developing assessments. Ensure that the chosen methods are sustainable over time.

10. Stakeholder Involvement

• Faculty Collaboration: Engage faculty in the development and review process to ensure that SLOs and assessments reflect collective expertise and are consistent across the program.
• Student Input: Consider gathering feedback from students on assessments and rubrics to understand their perspective and make adjustments as needed.
• Accreditation and Compliance: Align SLOs and assessments with accreditation standards and institutional requirements, ensuring that your program meets external expectations.

By taking these factors into consideration, you can develop robust and effective student learning outcomes, rubrics, and assessments that enhance student learning and contribute to continuous improvement in your educational program.

In going through this exercise, I was impressed with GPT-4’s response, which is pretty similar to human experts.

Our higher educational institutions have a critical role to play in helping students realize their aspirations through inclusive curricula and opportunities that, instead of drilling and killing, help students thrive.

In the 1995 film Apollo 13, Ed Harris, the actor playing Gene Kranz, NASA flight director, says, “failure is not an option.” To me that line is apropos to the present fraught context where the public is divided on the value of education. By being laser focused on promoting student success, facilitated by use of effective learning outcomes and assessment instruments, our colleges and universities can ensure failure is not an option.

The post V7I1: Letter from the President appeared first on NWCCU.

Sonny Ramaswamy, President, NWCCU

Selena Grace, Executive Vice President, NWCCU

Historical Context of Undergraduate Degrees in the United States

Although post-secondary education has been offered in the United States since the establishment of Harvard in 1636, only since the early 1900s, public and private degree-granting colleges and universities in the United States have offered baccalaureate degrees that typically take four years for completion. During the 1890s, Harvard professor Charles W. Eliot devised the collegiate credit hour standard, which the Carnegie Foundation formalized in 1906 and which formed the basis of retirement pensions (later known as TIAA-CREF) for university professors with the qualification that universities must enforce the standard. By 1910, nearly all secondary institutions in the United States used the “Carnegie Unit” to define course work.

The Carnegie Foundation also established that college “work” must include a minimum of four years of study and provided additional definitions. The Carnegie Unit, thus, was a time-based reference for measuring educational attainment, and Student Hour was approximately 12 hours of class or contact time. Student Hour – also referred to as Credit Hour – was the equivalent of one hour (50 minutes) of lecture time for a single student per week over the course of a semester, usually 14 to 16 weeks. The typical bachelor’s degree program of study on a semester calendar required at least 120 credit hours, normal full-time registration was usually 15 credit hours per semester or 30 per academic year and comprised approximately 30-40 courses.

Thus, the genesis of the four-year undergraduate degrees in the United States was tied to the definition of workloads for faculty, which in turn was tied to faculty pensions!

Extant Four-Year Baccalaureate Degrees in the United States

The model of the four-year degree based on the Carnegie Unit that was created over 100 years ago became the norm in American colleges and universities. Under the four-year baccalaureate degree model that exists today, students are required to take approximately 120 semester or 180 quarter credits of courses, which may include practicums and laboratory modules. Each term students may register for a set number of credit hours and demonstrate learning outcomes via term papers, quizzes, and exams. The typical four-year baccalaureate degree programs may include:

• Foundational courses that provide a broad educational base and include General Education curricula that inculcate core competencies and skills such as, for example, critical thinking, problem solving, and communication skills, digital and information literacy, ethics and professionalism, global awareness, and cultural sensitivity.
• Institution- or discipline-specific graduation requirements, including advanced upper division courses, foreign language proficiency, or advanced math and science requirements.
• Courses specific to the chosen field of study, i.e., major.
• In addition, many students choose to add minors, certificates, microcredentials, enrichment programs, and high impact experiential learning, including co-op programs, study abroad, externships, or internships to complement their major. These additional programs can typically be part of the 120/180 semester/quarter credits required for a baccalaureate degree or be supplemental.

Model of Undergraduate Degrees in Other Countries

Baccalaureate degrees in other countries, including, for example, in Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Slovakia, Australia, and India, typically are completed in three years; however, professional and specialized degrees may last four, five, or even six years.

For over 15 years, the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers Electronic Database for Global Education (AACRAO EDGE) has been evaluating foreign educational credentials for international students interested in pursuing post-graduate education in the United States. Based on the evaluation, which includes the number of years of full-time study or benchmarking that emphasizes learning outcomes, international students with three-year degrees may be admitted directly into graduate programs in the United States. Some American universities may require such students to take additional courses before they embark on their graduate degrees.

To harmonize and to create an internationally competitive European Area of Higher Education, some systems of European higher education established the Bologna Process in 1999. As part of the European Higher Education Area, participating countries agreed to: introduction of a three-cycle higher education system consisting of bachelor’s (Level 1), master’s (Level 2), and doctoral (Level 3) studies; mutual recognition of qualifications and learning periods abroad completed at other universities; and implementing a system of quality assurance to strengthen the quality and relevance of learning and teaching. To date, 49 countries are members of the Bologna Process.

The Bologna Process also states that Level 1 (bachelor’s degree) must be at least three years in length and precede Level 2 (master’s degree).

Some American universities accept the Bologna Process credentialing, which allows graduates of European member institutions with three-year degrees to be accepted seamlessly into graduate programs at those institutions. The Bologna Process ensures comparability in the standards and quality of higher-education qualifications.

Accelerated Baccalaureate Degrees

Starting a few years ago, there has been a call for a reexamination of the seat time approach to baccalaureate degrees, i.e., that undergraduate degrees must last four-years. Ironically, about a decade ago, the Carnegie Foundation itself began to question the premise of the universal credit hour, “because it promotes the false perception that seat time equals learning,” which apparently was not the intent when the Carnegie Unit was created more than a century ago. Across higher education many alternative approaches have emerged that challenge the traditional Carnegie Unit and seat time approach. Indeed, Thomas Ehrlich is quoted as saying that the Carnegie Unit “may be perpetuating bad habits that get in the way of institutional change in higher education.”

In contrast to the traditional four-year baccalaureate program, accelerated baccalaureate degree programs allow students to complete program requirements in fewer than four years. There are different models of these accelerated baccalaureate degree programs.

Some institutions have purposefully created pathways for students to complete the approximately 120 semester/180 quarter credits in three years. Students rack up all the requirements for four-year baccalaureate degrees within three years by taking more than the typical credit load per term and take the remaining credits during summer terms. Note that nothing prevents students from doing this at any institution; the challenge is one of effective advising, along with course availability and sequencing. For example, Sonny’s daughter completed her undergraduate degree in three years at New York University.

Yet another model is based on competency-based education (CBE) or direct assessment (DA). In the former CBE model, student learning outcomes are based on achievement of clearly defined, disciplinary competencies, in which students complete the degree degree requirements at their own pace and some can potentially complete their undergraduate degrees in fewer years than the typical four-year timeframe. In the latter DA model, students take a combination of courses and practical education that are assessed directly for mastery of course and program requirements and not based on pre-determined seat time to earn credits. In the DA model, as well, students complete the degree requirements at their own pace, and some can potentially complete their undergraduate degrees in fewer years than the typical four-year timeframe.

NWCCU received a proposal from Brigham Young University-Idaho and Ensign College for a new, Accelerated Baccalaureate Degree constituting approximately 90-credits to be completed in three-years. The proposal was subjected to an intense, iterative review and assessment over almost two years, which included a number of questions from members of the NWCCU Board of Commissioners, multiple conversations with federal accreditation and student aid staff, state regulators, a number of graduate school deans across the United States, disciplinary and programmatic accreditors, and myriad others.

During the vetting process, we learned that the United States Department of Education (USDE) does not per se have specific regulations that specify seat time nor credit hour requirements. Similarly, NWCCU does not have Standards for Accreditation nor Eligibility Requirements that specify seat time nor credit hours. Creation of accelerated baccalaureate degrees do not per se impact the institution’s accreditation status. The USDE’s Federal Student Aid office informed us that domestic students in 90-credit, three-year baccalaureate programs remain fully eligible for federal financial aid, including student loans and Pell Grants. Similarly, there are no apparent statutory constraints to students in three-year baccalaureate programs being eligible for student aid at the state level.

In addition, we sought answers from various stakeholders and specifically from the two institutions to a number of questions, including:

• How do 90-credit, three-year baccalaureate programs ensure the same level of educational quality as 120 semester/180 quarter credit, four-year programs?
• What is the specific structure of the 90-credit, three-year baccalaureate degree programs, and how do they differ from four-year degrees? Are there provisions for stackable programs, and how do they enhance the educational experience?
• Will the 90-credit, three-year baccalaureate program allow for and include experiential education and capstone courses and experiences?
• How have students, faculty, and other relevant stakeholders been involved in the development and evaluation of these proposals?
• How might the combination of concurrent/dual enrollment credits received at high schools be incorporated into a 90-credit, three-year baccalaureate degree program?
• What will be the impact of 90-credit, three-year degree programs on community colleges? Is there a risk that these factors could temporarily diminish community colleges’ ability to attract students?
• Will students with a three-year baccalaureate degree meet various post-graduation requirements, including for professional licensure, employment, graduate education?
• What will be the overall impact on institutional finances and reputation?
• How might this influence grant funding, graduate school placement, faculty recruitment, and other institutional aspects?
• Will student learning outcomes of students in 90-credit, three-year degree programs be comparable to those of four-year degree programs? How will success of these programs be measured and what benchmarks will be used?
• Will graduate and professional degree programs consider applicants who have completed three-year baccalaureate degrees?
• What implications will the introduction of three-year baccalaureate programs have on the transferability of college credits earned in high school or at two-year institutions? Specifically, how will this affect the seamless transfer of credits into receiving institutions that have condensed learning outcomes and subject matter mastery into 90 semester credits?

In addition, NWCCU also made the determination that the 90-credit, three-year baccalaureate programs likely will not be applicable to all disciplines, including, for example, engineering, health professions, and agriculture and forestry, and other such programs that have unique curricular and experiential educational and capstone requirements. Much of the learning outcomes and degree requirements associated with these latter disciplines are driven by programmatic accreditors. However, it is important to note that many of the specialized accreditors are also looking at different accelerated pathways to baccalaureate degree completion.

The proposals for the 90-credit, three-year degrees from BYU-I and Ensign have been approved as a pilot to offer a limited number of baccalaureate degrees constituting 90-95 semester credits, each of which includes three stackable ~30-credit units and incorporate general electives and institutional learning outcomes related to core competencies into the stackable courses. NWCCU will assess how these degrees compare with traditional four-year/120-180 semester/quarter credit hour degrees based on multiple criteria, by tracking student learning outcomes and their assessment, milestones, retention and completion rates, and post-graduation outcomes, including employability, licensure, student loan default rates, admission into graduate and professional schools, and more. After assessment of the pilot at the end of each year, NWCCU will make a determination on whether to authorize additional three-year baccalaureate degrees at these and other institutions.

This past winter (March 2024), the New England Commission on Higher Education (NECHE) provided guidance to its member institutions considering offering baccalaureate degrees constituting fewer than 120 credits. To date, they have not approved any institution to offer the same. The guidance includes requirements that the institution must clearly distinguish the degree with a prefix that it requires fewer than 120 credit hours, include language prominently displayed in marketing materials, including on websites, that graduate, professional schools, and employers may not accept baccalaureate degrees with fewer than 120 credits, specify the program creates a pathway to a four-year degree, ensure institutions develop an assessment plan that measures student outcomes, including post-gradation outcomes, define curricular requirements, and, critically, meet NECHE’s Standards for Accreditation.

In addition, a representative from the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) stated at the Second College-in-3 Exchange Conference that they are developing a path to approve three-year baccalaureate degrees, for which HLC has recently released a guidance document.

Suzanne T. Ortega, president of the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS), stated that, while the CGS and its members “care deeply about” finding ways to address the cost of higher education, they “caution against promising students that a three-year bachelor’s degree will prepare them appropriately for graduate school in all circumstances. She pointed out that “graduate schools must comply with requirements set by accreditors and state boards, and noted that admissions committees consider applicants’ extracurricular activities, research, and internships-experiences that an accelerated college degree may not allow time for.”

As an accreditor, NWCCU does not set requirements for seat time nor credit hours for baccalaureate degrees. Our focus continues to be on student learning outcomes. In addition, several graduate school deans we reached out to stated that every graduate program reviews each application for graduate school – whether from a four-year program or foreign three-year program – to ensure they meet the requirements unique to each graduate program.

Rationale for Accelerated Baccalaureate Degrees

Accelerated baccalaureate degrees are an opportunity for institutions to create student-centric and flexible programs of study. By shortening the time to graduation and successful completion of educational goals, they can reduce the net cost of higher education and potentially have a significant impact on the student debt crisis in our nation.

In addition, accelerated baccalaureate degree programs such as the 90-credit, three-year degrees offer nontraditional students, including veterans and active-duty military personnel, the opportunity to achieve their educational aspirations in the shortest time possible. Similarly, the approximately 40-plus million individuals that have some college credits, but did not complete the degree requirements, are another group that can benefit from accelerated baccalaureate degrees. These groups will require institutions to spend the time to review the prior learning and educational credentials and map them through a path to allow such individuals to complete their degrees. This diverse population of individuals is not looking for, nor do they need, the traditional college experience. They are facing complex work-family-life balance issues and the 90-credit, three-year degree offers an alternative pathway for those individuals to achieve a better way of life. Furthermore, institutions should look at incorporating skills-based learning, embedded internships, and other high impact practices in such programs. The economic gains that may be realized are going to be significant.

Legislative and Other Actions

A few state legislatures and regulatory bodies have initiated efforts to promote the creation and execution of three-year degrees.

For example, the Indiana state Senate has recently passed Senate Bill 8, which, in addition to several new initiatives, “Requires each institution that offers baccalaureate degrees to establish a policy to review each of the institution’s four year baccalaureate degree program offerings to determine the feasibility of providing each in a specifically structured manner to allow a full-time student to complete the baccalaureate degree within three years. Requires, not later than July 1, 2025, each institution to offer at least one baccalaureate degree program specifically structured to allow a full-time student to complete the baccalaureate degree within three years. Requires an institution to provide an annual report to the commission regarding offering four year baccalaureate degree programs completed in three years.” This Bill awaits action in the Indiana House of Representatives.

A recent vote by the Utah Board of Higher Education creates a path for Utah public colleges and universities to offer three-year applied studies bachelor’s degrees in some disciplines tied to specific industry workforce needs and faster pathways into careers. The new, applied studies bachelor’s degree would comprise 90 credits for completion, unlike the 120 credits required for a four-year bachelor’s degree.

At the federal level, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar has incorporated a provision in a 2024 spending bill to let colleges use federal financial aid funds through the United States Department of Education’s Experimental Sites Initiative program to try three-year degrees. Whether this becomes reality remains to be determined.

Conclusions

The time has come for the American higher education community to recognize that there is nothing sacrosanct about the traditional four-year degree programs, as practiced in America for over 100 years, which as we noted above was a way to account for workloads and pensions.

In this era of alternative credentials and competition from corporate America, it’s an opportunity for institutions of higher education to be creative and reimagine and reengineer higher education. The College-in-3 effort created by Robert Zemsky, Lori Carrell, and colleagues offers rationale and ideas to create three-year degree programs.

We believe there are multiple paths to achieving the necessary credentials, including accelerated baccalaureate degrees, in a thoughtful and deliberate manner. The process must take into account issues related to program evaluation, quality assurance, governance, faculty buy-in, and finances. The focus should be on student learning outcomes, which inculcate knowledge and skills, and not seat time. In addition, we do not believe accelerated baccalaureate degrees should be identified differently – they’re baccalaureate degrees.

As noted above there are different paths to achieving baccalaureate credentials, focused on learning outcomes. If the learning outcomes in four-year degree programs and three-year degree programs are the same, why should the latter be considered less than the former? To paraphrase the inimitable words of the poet James Whitcomb Riley, “if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck.”

Accelerated baccalaureate degrees are a path to further democratizing postsecondary education by enhancing affordability, accessibility, and program alignment to labor market needs. It puts students at the center.

Let’s reimagine and reengineer higher education!

The post V6I4: Letter from the President appeared first on NWCCU.

Sonny Ramaswamy, President, NWCCU  

As the institutional accreditor for over 160 colleges and universities, located predominantly in the Pacific Northwest, our workflow ebbs and flows around our late-June (Summer) and late-January (Winter) Commission Meetings. This is when our member institutions make an appearance for their comprehensive, year-seven Evaluation of Institutional Effectiveness (EIE) review, after which our Board of Commissioners takes action on the institutions’ accreditation.  

The institutional appearances in some ways remind me of doctoral dissertation defense exams. Even as we try to make the appearances congenial and non-confrontational, it’s intense and sometimes nerve-wracking for the institutional presidents and chancellors who make the appearance and must “defend” their efforts in light of the findings and recommendations of the volunteer peer evaluation teams. This appearance is the culmination of a process that starts seven years prior and includes a series of annual reports and staff feedback, mid-cycle self-study report and on-campus peer evaluation visit, year-six Policies, Regulations, and Financial Resources virtual peer review, and the comprehensive, year-seven EIE self-study report and on-campus peer evaluation visit (Figure 1).

Institutions that are doing well, i.e., are singularly focused on student success and have all of the relevant processes and procedures in place to support student outcomes, which allow them to meet or exceed NWCCU’s Standards for Accreditation and Eligibility Requirements, know the process will be a breeze.  

In contrast, institutions that are having challenges because of, for example, poor student outcomes, declining enrollments and budgets, or governance issues, could potentially be found to be non-compliant with our Standards, Eligibility Requirements, or Policies and Procedures, find themselves in the hot seat, in part, because non-compliance could result in sanctions of Warning, Probation, or Show Cause. 

During the commission meetings, time is set aside for our commissioners and staff to also engage in broader conversations regarding institutional effectiveness, particularly in relation to federal/state policies and regulations, legislative actions, extant societal conversations, strategic directions for the commission, commission policies and procedures, diversity, equity, and inclusion, data- and evidence-informed approaches to evaluation and promoting student access, belonging, and success, and myriad other topics relevant to higher education and accreditation.  

As we prepared for the 2024 Winter commission meeting, which occurred this past late January, one of our commissioners asked if we could spend time facilitating discussion of findings published in three, recent reports: a survey of employers regarding the need to inculcate in students core competencies, including critical thinking, problem solving, communication skills, etc., postsecondary completion trends, and education and skills required for jobs of the future.  

Related to the results of the survey of employers, our member institutions know that NWCCU’s Standards, particularly Standard 1.C.6, require measurable demonstration via learning outcomes that the they are inculcating core competencies, such as, for example, effective communication skills, global awareness, cultural sensitivity, scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical analysis and logical thinking, problem solving, and/or information literacy. NWCCU was the first institutional accreditor to incorporate such learning outcomes for core competencies in the Standards for Accreditation, and since then only two other institutional accreditors have done the same. 

Progress on college completion rates appears to have stalled in America, with the six-year, national completion rate for the fall 2017 cohort at 62.2 percent, essentially unchanged since 2015. Completion rates increased in over half of the states and rates stalled or declined across all ethnicities, with Native American and Black students posting the largest decreases. The gender gap in completion rates continues to grow, with 70.8 percent of females completing in six years versus 63.4 percent of males. While six-year completion rates for traditional-aged (18-24-year-old) students declined, it increased for older students, although the latter group still lags traditional-aged students.  

The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center’s report on completion rates includes averages across all student types (i.e., those entering postsecondary education for the first time, full-time or part-time at two-year or four-year institutions, and completing at any U.S. degree-granting institution) and institution types (i.e., public, private, tribal, and faith-based colleges and universities). The highest, average six-year completion rate was seen in Vermont at 74.1 percent. The average rates for students in the Pacific Northwest (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington) was 51.3 percent, with a range of 34.3 to 56.9 percent, significantly lower than the national average of 62.2 percent.  

The Clearinghouse analysis, based on all student types and institution types, masks significant completion rates at individual NWCCU member institutions, some of which are on par or even surpass national peers. We will be working with all of our member institutions to address completion rates by supporting/requiring the use of institutionally identified indicators of student outcomes benchmarked against peer institutions, as required under Standard 1.D.2 and 1.D.3.  

NWCCU has initiated development and deployment of data dashboards as decision support tools for our staff, peer evaluators, commissioners to undertake data-informed evaluation of institutional effectiveness. Starting with the Spring 2024 peer evaluation visit season, we will also be offering guidance , training, workshops, and other forms of support on the use of regional and national peer benchmarking to drive student outcomes.  

Institutional effectiveness, as measured by student achievement and outcomes, underlies the preparedness of graduates to succeed economically and socially. To succeed in the modern economy, particularly in the decades to come, the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University reports that workers will need significant postsecondary education. The report states that 72 percent of all jobs in the future will require postsecondary education or training; indeed, the report paints a dire warning: without a postsecondary degree, certificate, credential, or at least some college, the path to middle-class jobs is narrow.  

These national trends, reflected in the recent reports cited above, suggest that it will require a concerted effort on the part of our institutions, the federal and state regulators, and accreditors to ensure students are successful in achieving their educational goals, such that they have developed the knowledge and skills needed for the jobs of the future.  

In a recent article on the challenges and opportunities facing higher education and accreditation, I wrote that there is a need to reimagine and reengineer higher education and accreditation, laser-focused on student success and closing equity gaps, while ensuring accountability and transparency.  

I stated every individual on campus – students, staff, administrators, and other stakeholders of the campus community – has a critical role in ensuring student success, and not just faculty, who own the curricula, teach, and have the primary role in helping students achieve their unique educational goals.  

Similarly, as an accreditor, we have a role in ensuring student success, i.e., one of holding institutions accountable, articulated in NWCCU’s 2020 Standards for Accreditation and vision to promote student success and closing equity gaps by fostering access, belonging, and success of ALL students, regardless of their socioeconomic backgrounds. NWCCU’s approach is to support evidence- and data-informed, continuous improvement by promoting educational outcomes at institutions, thus contributing to institutional effectiveness.  

By such reimagination and reengineering of higher education and accreditation, our expectation is that it will result in addressing the dismal completion rates, help create a cadre of graduates with the knowledge and skills to enter the jobs of the modern economy, thus, advancing their economic and social mobility.

At a different time and under a different context, Winston Churchill stated, “This is no time for ease and comfort. It is time to dare and endure.” 

For higher education, this is indeed a time to dare and not be satisfied with the status quo regarding institutional effectiveness, i.e., poor student outcomes. 

There’s no magic formula to promoting institutional effectiveness; it will require a concerted, collaborative, all-hands-on-deck effort. 

The post V6I3: Letter from the President appeared first on NWCCU.

Sonny Ramaswamy, President, NWCCU

Sunday. October 7, 2023.

I woke up as usual at 5:45 am. I started my morning routine. Set the coffee pot to brew, turned CNN on, and did some stretches.

What I saw on CNN was horrific. Several kibbutzim, military bases, and a music concert venue in Israel had been attacked by Hamas-led militants. The brutality was mind-boggling. The images were horrific. Heartbreaking. There were reports of significant casualties and that several had been taken hostage.

Sure enough, Israel launched airstrikes on Gaza. Over the next several days and weeks, entire blocks of buildings, schools, hospitals, United Nations refugee centers, churches, mosques, and other areas were destroyed by the airstrikes and ground incursion. The scenes of the death of civilians, particularly women and children, were heartbreaking.

Then the protests started. Across America. Across the world. Pro Israel. Pro Palestine. Mostly peaceful. Some violent.

In America we saw antisemitism and Islamophobia rear their ugly heads. Contentious conversations about free speech. People who wanted thoughtful discourse caught in the middle. We saw community and religious leaders calling for calm discourse, trying to create a path forward.

Protests across universities and colleges across America continue, including on the campuses of Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities’ (NWCCU) member institutions. Students of Jewish and Arab/Muslim descent feeling threatened and insecure.

Some institutions have dealt with the protests and counterprotests in a thoughtful manner. A few others, unfortunately, did not. At these latter campuses, campus and local police had to be called in to quell the protests. Many protesters were arrested.

In some instances, the United States Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation initiated investigations, including against some NWCCU members. Alumni and donors at some of these institutions have either pulled or threatened to pull donations.

Even the United States Congress insinuated itself into these protests and hauled up a few university leaders to testify. Then, the calls started for the presidents of these universities to resign. From alumni. From donors. From politicians and political hacks. Indeed, one resigned.

Student protest groups are being banned in some states and on some campuses, totally against the constitutionally protected First Amendment right of assembly and protest.

As I have watched the unfolding events in America since October 7, particularly the heartbreaking and traumatizing incidents of antisemitism and Islamophobia, I have wondered, how is it that some institutions seemed to have been caught completely unawares and become reactive, while others appeared to take this in stride and managed the dissension with constructive engagement of the various factions. What we have learned is that these latter institutions take a proactive and long view of such situations and deployed planned and thoughtful approaches that included hosting dialogue and constructive discourse, which brought groups together focused on the similarities, rather than on differences, as a way to address extant challenges.

I have mulled over these differences in approaches, i.e., what’s in the DNA of the institutions that created a vision, environment, and infrastructure that encourages civility and an interest in protecting the wellbeing of the entire community and not just particular groups?

For example, NWCCU member institution George Fox University has created the Civility Project, in partnership with Newberg-Dundee, the area in Oregon where it’s located.

The George Fox University Civility Pledge reads: “I will be kind and respectful to everyone. I will listen to understand the views and values of those with whom I disagree. I will work to solve problems by seeking common ground. I will refrain from mocking or ridiculing those who disagree with me. I will seek to trust, and be trustworthy and truthful, in my interactions with others.”

George Fox University’s Professor Emeritus Ron Mock and President (and NWCCU Commissioner) Robin Baker offer an essay in this issue of The Beacon, entitled Advancing Political Civility, on their efforts to promote civil discourse and engagement in dealing with extant, fraught issues. The university’s Civility Project takes a multipronged approach to create an environment where everyone has a stake regarding the well-being of the institution and community by: promoting relationships with others, including opponents; treating disagreements as gifts; and encouraging collaborative decision making. The intent in George Fox University’s efforts is to create a safe environment, where every member of the community is involved and every member is afforded the opportunity to thrive.

NWCCU Standards for Accreditation, Eligibility Requirements, Policies, and Procedures articulate an expectation for institutions to ensure the safety of the campus community.

Indeed, the preamble to NWCCU’s Standard Two – Governance, Resources, and Capacity reads:

The institution articulates its commitment to a structure of governance that is inclusive in its planning and decision-making. Through its planning, operational activities, and allocation of resources, the institution demonstrates a commitment to student learning and achievement in an environment respectful of meaningful discourse.

When we consider student success, we immediately think of how best to enhance cognitive and subject-matter knowledge and skills via student learning experiences, i.e., the instructor-facilitated learning that occurs in the classroom.

Institutions that are highly successful know that student success requires the creation of a safe and secure environment that is student-centric and ensures students have access to outstanding in- and out-of-classroom experiences, promotes a sense of belonging, and supports achievement of their aspirational educational goals and success. These institutions ensure that they are providing a combination of relevant cognitive, subject-matter learning experiences and inculcation of noncognitive skills in a transformative educational ecosystem, along with relevant services and student support.

Based on extant research and literature, in a recent issue of The Beacon, I wrote about several best practices to help create community and belonging leading to student success, including: the creation of multiple paths to access education; facilitating creation of community via relevant social networks to enhance belonging and promoting their success by offering tailored advising and classroom and experiential learning; inculcating noncognitive skills; incorporation of high impact practices; ensuring basic needs are met; using multimodal communication platforms; involving peer mentors; providing opportunities for students to share their experiences and follow through with appropriate support; engaging parents and families; facilitating collaboration; demonstrating care and compassion; providing just-in-time and emergency financial aid in the form of grants; ensuring availability of support services such as housing, food, physical and mental healthcare, and daycare for students who are parents; and rendering other critical support.

There’s no magic formula to creating transformative education. It will require a concerted, collaborative, all-hands-on-deck campus effort to create a student-centric ecosystem to promote success. In the classroom and outside the classroom. It is context and mission dependent. Highly successful institutions promote constructive discourse and engagement in a safe and secure environment, so students may achieve their goals and succeed. The complete moral, emotional, intellectual, and civic transformation of the individual – succinctly captured by the German word, bildung – describes the framework for promoting the environment where students succeed.

Let’s hope that the protests we see on our streets and on our campuses will be channeled to promote civil discourse and engagement in dealing with extant, fraught issues. The experiences of George Fox University and others offer lessons.

Let’s hope peace prevails in Israel and Palestine and that Jewish people and Palestinians can create a path of co-existence, where both can thrive.

I am reminded of the African American approach, “making a way out of no way,” which may offer a potential path, relying on promoting agency, creativity, and resilience, and challenging oppression and discrimination to create ways out of no way.

The post V6I2: Letter from the President appeared first on NWCCU.

State of Higher Education and Accreditation in America: Challenges and Opportunities

Sonny Ramaswamy, President, NWCCU

Post-secondary education continues to be worth the investment; indeed, college graduates earn on average almost twice as much as do high school graduates, have greater career mobility, are healthier, and realize a better quality of life. In addition, higher education has been demonstrated to facilitate social and economic mobility.

While the core mission of higher education remains the same as it has for decades, colleges and universities in America are facing an unprecedented array of challenges and threats. These include, but not limited to, demographic challenges, escalating inequities and poor outcomes for students from disadvantaged communities, declining enrollments, budget constraints, increasing cost of education, the student debt crisis, competition and alternatives to traditional colleges, impact of technology, including generative artificial intelligence, on the educational enterprise, issues related to free speech and academic freedom, and last, but not least, the fraught political environment. Exacerbating the impacts of these challenges is the loss of “free” money from the federal government for dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, the cost of having to deal with the long term physical and mental health effects of SARS-CoV2, and the increasing cost of ensuring campuses are climate resilient.

Despite these challenges, the value proposition of higher education continues to remain strong, because our nation’s knowledge economy and global competition require an educated and skilled workforce.

Accreditation as we know it, i.e., the peer review process of validating degrees awarded by higher education, has been in existence in the United States since the late 19th Century. Since 1952, the peer review and accreditation process to measure institutional quality became formalized and the federal government began recognizing accreditors. Following creation of the U.S. Department of Education in 1979, the nationally recognized accrediting agencies were determined to be reliable authorities on the quality of education or training provided by accredited institutions of higher education.

During the ensuing decades, particularly in the last few years, accreditation has morphed from a compliance focus to a student outcomes focus. However, we see the value of accreditation being questioned by various entities that represent the continuum of the American political spectrum. Indeed, we have seen recent headlines trumpeting accreditors are a barrier to higher education reform, that the key is to bring in free-market principles to reform accreditation, and that accreditation is the “work of Satan.” Just this year, we have seen organizations and politicians have referred to accrediting agencies as cartels that are pushing a “woke “ideology. Some have stated that existing accrediting bodies should be eliminated, and new ones created.

It is unfortunate that the value of higher education and accreditation – both of which have been critical for America’s global reputation and competitiveness – is being attacked. We are at a seminal moment, when these enterprises need to reclaim their reputation and role in society.

The key to achieving viability and sustainability is for colleges and universities to demonstrate the value proposition of higher education – student outcomes – to the American public. This will require us to reimagine and reengineer higher education, so it is laser-focused on student success and closure of equity gaps, while ensuring accountability and transparency.

Similarly, accreditation needs to be reimagined and reengineered to support higher education by: holding institutions accountable; promoting innovations, experimentation, and risk taking; supporting deployment of a risk-based accreditation system; developing and deploying alternative reaffirmation processes; encouraging institutions to leverage technology in support of efforts to increase student achievement and success; accommodating and recognizing new and emerging educational models, including alternative credentialing, badges, competency-based education, certificate programs, and other such approaches; promoting data and evidence-informed approaches for continuous improvement in educational outcomes; simplifying reporting; mentoring by staff liaisons and experienced evaluators; promoting strong and effective training and education on accreditation, assessment, and student learning outcomes; improving communications; and enhancing transparency.

Despite the challenges noted above, there is a path forward, so long as we are singularly focused on delivering on the value proposition – student outcomes – of higher education and accreditation. The decisions we make now will determine our future success. Described below are some of the challenges that we need to be aware of and potential paths forward.

Value Proposition

The value proposition, i.e., of success and reputation, is likely the most important challenge and opportunity that institutions and accreditors must focus on. Urgently.

Delivering on the value proposition by colleges and universities, based on a renewed and vigorous commitment to student success, is in promoting ways, i.e., focusing on the raison d’etre of higher education, to enhance graduation/completion rates while closing equity gaps. It will also require promoting improvements to learning, building upon the skills of students to serve in a competitive and changing world, reducing the cost of education, and helping students achieve their aspirations.

Declining enrollments, budget reductions, direct costs for dealing with post-pandemic needs, and other challenges being experienced today by American higher education are not too dissimilar to previous such threats. The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to linger for years, if not decades. Accordingly, absent a strategic approach to deal with the potential long-term consequences now, they could be far more consequential to the fiscal health of institutions.

The drumbeat of institutions reducing their footprints, closing, merging, or forming confederated partnerships, which started well before the pandemic, has become more urgent and incessant. This requires institutions to devise well thought out plans to ensure their viability and sustainability.

The key to achieving viability and sustainability is for colleges and universities to focus singularly on demonstrating the value proposition of higher education, i.e., student outcomes. This requires a reimagining and reengineering of higher education, laser-focused on student success and closure of equity gaps, while ensuring accountability and transparency. Institutions that pivot to innovations that contribute to positive student outcomes will likely meet and overcome extant threats.

Demographics

The changing demographics in America, exacerbated by poor political decisions and the COVID-19 pandemic, present another challenge for colleges and universities.

For example, the decline in birth rates triggered by the Great Recession of 2008 is projected to create sharp reductions in enrollments of traditional college-age students starting in 2025, referred to by some as the demographic cliff.

A second demographic cliff, because of low birth rates during the COVID-19 pandemic (fertility rates of 1.779, 1.781, and 1.782 in 2020, 2021, and 2022, respectively), is projected to result in 300,000 to 500,000 fewer children in America. According to a report published by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), the impacts on higher education may not be quite as serious, at least through the early 2030s. However, WICHE projects that declines past 2033 are likely to be amplified because of the birth declines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Enrollment declines have been occurring in the years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which only exacerbated enrollment declines during the last three years, resulting in one million fewer students during the pandemic. A complete rebound in enrollments remains to be seen. The National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES) projections show that, at least until 2025, high school graduates will continue to increase. Hopefully that translates into more college bound students, which is not a guarantee. Surveys suggest fewer than half the high school students are considering a four-year college, down significantly from the 72 percent considering college previously.

The significant reduction in immigration, as a result of political intransigence regarding federal immigration policy, is projected to be down 2.5 million through this decade. This could, in combination with declining birth rates during the COVID-19 pandemic, result in a total US population of only around 375 million by 2050, instead of the previously projected 400 million, according to the US Census Bureau. The net result could be significantly fewer high school graduates enrolling in college over the next couple of decades. The demographic challenges portend significant financial headwinds for colleges and universities. In addition, because of the exceptionally strong economy today, enrollments continue to decline significantly, particularly at community colleges.

In the post-pandemic context with no additional “free” money from the federal government, combined with budget cuts at the state level, donor fatigue, and the uncertainty of population demographics, colleges and universities can and must plan and act proactively to address enrollment declines. It takes comprehensive strategic and tactical approaches to address student recruitment and retention, innovative educational programming to promote student success and closure of equity gaps, and restructuring of institutional mission and programs.

These headwinds will require novel approaches to recruit and retain traditional students. The competition for recruiting students will be intense. Although recent data suggest the significant downturn in enrollment of international students is turning around, competition for international students from other countries, including Canada, Australia, and Western Europe, is another factor that requires creative recruitment solutions.

A potential pool of students could be the huge non-traditional student population, including the nearly three million veterans of recent conflicts, the approximately 40 million individuals who did not complete college for various reasons, and the millions representing the Great Resignation. These non-traditional, often part time, students who want/need to update their credentials, i.e., upskilling and reskilling, are an outstanding pool for colleges and universities to consider and recruit from. In addition to the traditional model of recruiting students from high schools, new recruitment approaches are needed to reach the millions of place-bound, non-traditional students. This effort part could include effective outreach via social media and personal contacts through alumni and other supporters who come from similar communities. This may require changes to admissions standards, including elimination of application fees, standardized tests, and other such constraints facing non-traditional students.

Competition

Because of the demographic challenges noted above, institutions are “fishing” for students from the same, small, and diminishing pool. Competition for students will continue to be intense. Similarly, absent a change in visa rules, which colleges and universities can work collectively to make happen at the federal level, international students will not be an offsetting source of enrollments, as had been the case during past economic downturns. Even if American visa rules are changed, competition for international students from other countries is another factor that requires creative recruitment solutions.

Colleges will need to compete as well against other for-profit and non-profit institutions and against corporate educational efforts, such as that of Google, for example. The approaches could include creation of flexible pathways, mergers, institutional partnerships and consortia, public-private partnerships, construction and deployment of alternative credentialing, micro- and stacked-credentialing, badges, competency-based education, certificates, and non-traditional majors and degree offerings.

These strategies must be comprehensive, adaptable, data- and evidence-informed, and include a portfolio of approaches focused on the fundamentals, such as personalized education and services, intensive mentoring, intrusive advising and academic coaching, and use of experiential learning and other high impact practices. Student educational offerings should include a combination of technical, cognitive skills and transferrable non-cognitive, core competencies, such as critical thinking, problem solving, and communication skills. In addition, students will need help with financial aid and just-in-time grants, social networks, food and nutritional security, housing, child- and health-care support, and mental health counseling.

The stable, quiet world of accreditation is similarly now under pressure from various external forces. For decades, nationally recognized accreditors were determined to be reliable authorities on the quality of post-secondary education. With escalation of (hyper)partisan politics in America, the value of accreditation has been questioned, caught up in the calls against efforts related to diversity, equity, and inclusion and the “culture” wars. Yet others have called for accreditors to focus on alternative issues, including post-graduation outcomes. Some have argued that accreditors would be better equipped to perform their expected role of quality improvement if they were not “gatekeepers” for federal student aid. In recent weeks we have even seen a proposal to create a new accrediting body that will evaluate colleges and universities on their efforts to promote economic mobility gains for their students.

Accountability

In the last few years, there have been calls for institutions of higher education and accreditors to be held accountable, i.e., to deliver on their obligation to accept responsibility and account for their actions. Institutional and accreditor accountability are both derived from the need to focus on student outcomes. The competition against traditional educational institutions and calls for drastically changing or eliminating accreditation and to build new accreditation models are, in part, related to the notion that accreditors do not hold institutions accountable regarding student outcomes. Whether this latter is based on reality is not the question, as much as the fact that both higher education and accreditation are caught up in the maelstrom of the intense political divide in America.

Concurrently, congress and the administration have been calling for greater accountability. In a recent report, a subcommittee of the National Advisory Council on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) stated that accrediting agencies have made “their standards so flexible that each institution can create and apply any of a range of its own student achievement measures, setting its own benchmark for success, and if the peer review team sees a weakness, produce an improvement plan that may or may not lead to improvement.” The subcommittee concluded that accreditors are contributing to the lack of or diminished institutional accountability. This is an indictment and should be a wakeup call to accreditors.

In its reinvigorated approach to accreditation, NWCCU does not focus on inputs, as has been claimed by some. Rather, through its Standards for Accreditation, Eligibility Requirements, Policies, and Procedures, NWCCU applies data-informed approaches to promote equitable student outcomes.

NWCCU’s Standard on student achievement, particularly 1.D.2 and 1.D.3, specify that the member institution’s disaggregated indicators of success should be benchmarked against indicators for peer institutions and should be used for continuous self-improvement. However, we have not held our institutions accountable per se on these Standards. Because of questions that came up during our August 2, 2023 NACIQI appearance and in the NACIQI subcommittee’s report related to accountability, we are creating the framework and process to hold our institutions accountable. The approach will include requiring our institutions to declare their goals related to student achievement measures, such as retention rates, graduation/completion rates, time to completion, postgraduation outcomes, and cohort default rates, in comparison with their peers, and to use the data for continuous self-improvement. As part of the peer evaluative process, comparative data will be assessed to ensure institutions are achieving their goals; if not, there will be a path to help them become compliant within a defined period. Over the next few months additional details of this plan will come into focus, as we hope to deploy it in September 2024.

In conjunction with the deployment of the 2020 Standards for Accreditation, NWWCU has created vigorous educational programming, initiated data dashboards as decision support tools for peer evaluators and commissioners, and is promoting innovations – including, for example, three-year degrees and concurrent enrollment of high school students – at member institutions via a revamped Substantive Change process. These efforts to streamline the Standards, Eligibility Requirements, Policies, and Procedures have contributed to increased accountability, effectiveness, and efficiency, while mitigating the net cost of accreditation.

Academic Freedom and Free Speech

The hallmark of American higher education is the enshrinement and unwavering support of academic freedom and free expression. In the last few years, however, some organizations and public officials in some states and at the federal level have embarked on a coordinated campaign to censor free expression on our college campuses. Efforts to push back against such educational censorship laws have resulted in legislative calls and actions to restrict or even eliminate funding. Such censorship has the potential to impact the quality and rigor of classroom teaching, by contributing to the elimination or restriction of discussion of critical historical facts, incorporation of false narratives, and weakened scientific rigor. These efforts may serve to negatively impact the development of critical thinking skills and post-graduation success of students.

Individually withstanding the concerted efforts to censor free expression and infringe on academic freedom is difficult. Instead, what works is a coordinated, collaborative, and planned effort across higher education, as we see being undertaken by efforts such as, for example, Champions of Higher Education, that is supported by PEN America. More importantly, academic leaders need to be unwavering and unstinting in their efforts to support and promote free expression and academic freedom on their campuses. A good example of such efforts is the report on the freedom of expression by the University of Chicago. The bottom line is we must deliver on the promise of education; yet, shamefully, far too many students fail to achieve their higher education goals and aspirations, saddled with debt, and struggle to make ends meet.

Innovations

Innovations in higher education require being outcomes driven, using student achievement measures, i.e., focused on student success and closing equity gaps. For NWCCU, this means that indicators of student achievement measures are data disaggregated by race, ethnicity, age, gender, socioeconomic status, first generation college student, Pell eligibility, and other institutionally relevant and meaningful categories that may help promote student achievement and close barriers to academic excellence.

Data from multiple colleges and universities suggest that innovative and intentional strategies that address barriers to academic excellence in education result in significantly better overall outcomes in student success and help to close equity gaps. These outcomes also create a compelling value proposition to the students, parents, alumni, the public, and other key stakeholders.

Because the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic will be long lasting, higher education will need to reengineer itself, while retaining its fundamental purpose, i.e., student outcomes. The reengineering will require reanalysis of mission such that it is aligned with new business models, innovation, and risk-taking without jeopardizing core operations, and cogent communications strategy. It will require adaptability, patience, and perseverance.

Successful strategies require a scan of the ecosystem in which the institution operates, considering the internal and external milieu. It may include necessary market analyses, budget reductions, consolidation of educational programs resulting in a smaller footprint, partnerships with other educational institutions and/or private sector and non-profit program managers, and outsourcing of business and other services, to name a few approaches. However, all of these approaches must be undertaken with the future in mind, i.e., be flexible and allow for future growth, as budget pressures change and enrollments fluctuate.

It will also require a renewed commitment by higher education to enhance the cognitive and non-cognitive skills of students through learner-centered, experiential and other high impact opportunities. It may also include a combination of on-campus, online, or blended/hybrid, and technology driven education and learning models to create anytime, anywhere learning offered in an open-campus environment. All of these strategies, however, require continued emphasis on being student-centered, maintaining student-ready campuses, and offering courses and programs tailored to the needs of students to help them meet their aspirational goals. It will take a singular focus on inculcating core competencies, i.e., a combination of technical, cognitive skills, along with the non-cognitive, essential skills, such as critical thinking, problem solving, communication, teamwork, and other such skills, and, most importantly, the ability to question assumptions. Finally, students need the sense of belonging and community, which are factors that enhance retention and outcomes, both in on-campus and online contexts.

Student-Centered/Data-Informed

Innovative and intentional strategies to promote success must be student-centered, comprehensive, adaptable, data- and evidence-informed, and include a portfolio of approaches requiring the collaborative commitment and engagement of every member and every component of the institution to identify and solve the challenges facing institutions and accreditation.

With the help of funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, NWCCU has created its internal data and analytical systems infrastructure and has supported member institution efforts to help inventory and improve their systems to develop and deploy data-informed approaches to promote student outcomes. NWCCU is endeavoring also to help institutions identify benchmark quantitative and qualitative student achievement indicators in comparison with peer institutions at the regional and national levels. This approach must be used for institutional continuous improvement to promote student success. A number of institutions have capitalized on disaggregated evidence- and data-informed approaches and predictive analytics to significantly enhance graduation rates and close equity gaps. Combined with intrusive advising, evidence, data, and analytics are powerful tools. Additionally, experiences at some institutions have shown that empowering faculty, staff, students, and other relevant individuals to own and be trained to use data, thus, democratizing data, are resulting in significant gains in promoting student success and closing equity gaps. Effective strategies include use of data-informed predictive analytics and other digital tools to promote community and group interactions that ensures student learning.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that higher education and accreditation are facing unprecedented challenges. As described above, however, these challenges are not intractable – both at the institutional level and at the accreditor level – and should instead be viewed as opportunities. Institutions and accreditors will need to invest significant intellectual, financial, human, and infrastructural resources to manage the direct and indirect impacts of these challenges, which will offer significant opportunities to reimagine and reengineer these endeavors so as to focus on the raison d’etre of higher education: student success.

Paraphrasing the inimitable words of Mahatma Gandhi, “the future depends on what we do today.”

The post V6I1: Letter from the President appeared first on NWCCU.

Access, Belonging, Success

Sonny Ramaswamy, President, NWCCU

A few months ago, driving to work, I was listening to NPR. The story was on legislative bills either being considered or passed in several southern states regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), particularly as it related to teaching about critical race theory, systemic racism, social justice, and other issues.

I was reflecting on how shortsighted those actions were, when I had to hit the brakes on my 2016 Nissan Frontier pickup, because a concrete truck turned on to the main road I was traveling on. Luckily, it turned out okay, in part, because my pickup has antilock braking system (ABS).

The modern ABS system was patented in 1972 by Mario Palazzetti, while he was with the Fiat Research Center. Starting September 1, 2011, the United States federal government required all new cars to have ABS.

I was glad I had ABS and I was mulling over the same as I was driving, when it dawned on me: the acronym could stand for a new way to think of creating an environment in our colleges and universities to promote student success and close equity gaps: Access, Belonging, and Success.

Access, as a noun, has multiple meanings, but the one of relevance in our context is, “the opportunity to use or benefit from something,” i.e., to avail ALL students the opportunity to achieve their educational goals and become contributing members of their communities.

Belonging, as a noun, refers to “an affinity for a place or situation.” In the context of higher education, belonging as a verb, i.e., “to fit in a specified place or environment” or “be a member of a particular group,” is more apropos. The idea is how can we help create community and a sense of belonging, so students thrive and succeed. By creating a community in which students feel like they belong, we are also ensuring they are invested in and investing into those communities.

Success, as a noun, refers to the “accomplishment of an aim or purpose” or the “(good) outcome of an undertaking.” Both meanings are relevant in the context of higher education. We know that outcomes contribute to both personal and financial growth and satisfaction and, thus, higher education offers an exquisite mechanism to facilitate social and economic mobility for students.

During the last several months, I have engaged in conversations with an array of people inside and outside of academia on issues related to what is incumbent on the higher education enterprise to promote student success and close equity gaps; every one of these individuals, regardless of political stripe, agreed that access, belonging, and success are a meaningful and effective way to frame the conversation. Indeed, there’s agreement they may not generate the kind of negative reaction that terms such as diversity, equity, and inclusion seem to have generated in some quarters, in part, because the former are not teleological terms.

Teleological words relate to or involve the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve, rather than of the cause because of which they arise. Terms such as diversity, equity, inclusion, DEI, critical race theory, and CRT, unfortunately, have been misinterpreted from the perspective of their purpose, rather than the cause by which they arise. These phrases have become charged, and one might even say that have been hijacked and weaponized in some parts of America.

In contrast, access, belonging, and success, by definition, convey purpose. If our intent is to focus on outcomes for our students, i.e., their success and achievements, then it makes sense to use words to convey the need to address the challenges faced by students from underserved and socially and economically disadvantaged communities.

As an accreditor, we can be laser-focused on student outcomes by empowering member institutions to promote access, belonging, and success, contributing to measurable improvements in equitable outcomes and achievement of ALL students.

So, how does one operationalize this concept of promoting access, belonging, and success.

Exceptionally successful institutions create highly personalized, student-centric, and transformative educational opportunities, catering to each student individually by, for example:

• Offering multiple paths to access education.
• Helping create community via relevant social networks to enhance belonging and promoting their success by offering tailored advising and classroom and experiential learning.
• Inculcating noncognitive skills.
• Incorporating high impact practices.
• Ensuring availability of support services such as to meet housing, food, and physical and mental healthcare needs.
• Offering daycare for students who are parents.
• Providing just-in-time and emergency financial aid in the form of grants and rendering other critical support.

There is, however, no one-size-fits-all model to create the student-centric, transformative educational ecosystem to promote access, belonging, and success: it is context and mission dependent. However, effective programs share many elements. Indeed, in a previous issue of The Beacon, I wrote about the results from an informal survey on efforts to promote community and a sense of belonging amongst students – there were as many approaches as the institutions that responded and, yet, they shared several characteristics. Practically every one of the institutions took a hands-on, personalized approach to ensure their students were cocooned in an environment to ensure access, promote their sense of community and belonging and, thus, contribute to their success

A characteristic shared by successful institutions is that they create an environment of inclusive excellence by offering programs to promote the complete moral, emotional, intellectual, and civic transformation of the individual student by engendering an environment where obstacles are removed to ensure students have access, feel a sense of community and belonging, and, thus, secure their success. Institutions that are highly successful know that student success requires a combination of providing the relevant cognitive, subject-matter learning experiences and inculcation of transferable, noncognitive skills in a transformative educational ecosystem. Ultimately, transformative education is not just about the student learning experience in the courses they take; rather it is about a combination of the learning experience and the environment where students thrive because they are supported, belong, and are connected and engaged.

Strategies to promote student access, belonging, and success can indeed result in measurable improvements in addressing inequities, enhance diversity, and create a sense of inclusion on campus.

In an inspiring essay in this issue of The Beacon, Carl Hernandez, Brigham Young University’s (BYU) very first Vice President for Belonging, writes about his personal journey and the efforts to promote access, belonging, and success at his institution.

Carl grew up in California’s San Joaquin Valley as a child of migrant farm workers, toiling in olive groves and vineyards. Carl attributes where he is today as a senior executive at a major university in America to opportunities he was afforded and the mentoring he received at multiple points in his life, including while a student at BYU. He credits his success to the access BYU afforded him and the environment of belonging that was created at the institution.

Carl is an example of an individual who succeeded, not the least, because of the mentoring he received, but that BYU offered him access to an excellent education and did everything to ensure he belonged in the community. He is now paying forward as the Vice President for Belonging by helping create the supportive environment for other students from underserved and disadvantaged communities to succeed at BYU.

There are many Carls at our colleges and universities who have succeeded because of the opportunities and support afforded them; yet, there are many, many others who need doors to be opened, offered the mentoring and support, and nurtured in an environment of belonging, so they can succeed. This does not have to be fraught and weaponized. It’s in our nation’s best interest to enable the same.

Our Republic’s founding fathers, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, called for the democratization of higher education, so the children of the masses could also aspire to higher education, which then could pull them out of the morass of poverty and allow them to become contributing members of society.

Anything we can do to promote access, belonging, and success can help further democratize higher education and contribute to the well-being of our democracy.

In light of the above, we have articulated a new vision:

The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities is the premier accreditor whose member institutions foster access, belonging, and success of every student.

As Victor Hugo stated, “nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.”

The post V5I4: Letter from the President appeared first on NWCCU.

Governance: The Final Frontier

Sonny Ramaswamy, President, NWCCU

On a recent flight to Atlanta to attend a conference, “Making the Grade: Strategies for Success in Higher Education,” I started writing this essay on governance.

As I thought about it, I was reminded that governance is indeed the final frontier, i.e., the often unknown, secretive, inscrutable, sometimes disconnected enterprise in higher education, which the faculty, staff, students, parents, alumni, and the public are disconnected from and often know nothing about.

We know governance can make or break an institution.

As I thought about governance being the final frontier, I was reminded of when I came to America in January 1976 for my Ph.D. in entomology, during which I studied German cockroach sexual behavior and reproduction at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ.

A Rutgers graduate had arranged for my housing at the Quaker House, a gorgeous 19th Century Colonial, located at 33 Remsen Avenue. The Friends, i.e., Quakers, met once a week for their prayer meetings at the Quaker House; intrigued about the Quakers, whom I knew nothing about, being an FOB (Fresh Off the Boat), I attended a few of their meetings and found them to be refreshingly worldly, and not at all parochial.

The residents of Quaker House included an array of graduate students, predominantly Caucasian Americans, one African American, and a few from India and Africa. I was introduced to pizza, along with copious amounts of beer, and American Football and learned the rules of the game. I watched the playoffs that season and the Super Bowl between the Pittsburgh Steelers with Terry Bradshaw and the Dallas Cowboys with Roger Staubach (which Pittsburgh won 21-17 and, to date, the Steelers are one of my favorite teams).

At the Quaker House, I was also introduced to Star Trek on television. My housemates gave me a primer on the same and we watched it religiously every evening. What has stuck in my memory through all these decades is the show started with the intonation, “Space, A Final Frontier,” and the starship Enterprise flying across the screen into the void!

Space, like governance, is for the most part still unknown, has lots of secrets, is inscrutable, and people on Earth are disconnected with and oblivious of it. And yet, Space and its constituents affect everything we do on Earth, not too dissimilar to governance and governing boards affecting every aspect of an institution’s being.

The word governance as a noun refers to the act or process of governing or overseeing the control and direction of something, such as a college or university, a company, or a non-profit organization.

When asked, most everyone can define governance; however, they most likely would use various other words to describe the term, without actually defining what it is, because the meaning of governing, governance, etc. are context dependent and in the eye of the beholder. This situation is not too dissimilar to the “I know it, when I see it” statement attributed to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who used it in the context of a 1964 case on obscenity in which they needed to define pornography.

Foundational to governance and governing bodies, such as Boards of Trustees or Regents, are strategy and tactic.

Governance! It can often be the defining part of the success or failure of an organization.

In my experience, the most successful institutions of higher education are characterized by governance structures and governing boards whose members have an excellent, cooperative, collaborative, and supportive relationship with the institution’s administration and yet hold it accountable; are trustworthy and trust the institutional administration to manage the day to day affairs; have distinctly defined board structure and function; have clear and transparent board processes, norms, and values; are deeply knowledgeable about the institution and its academic enterprise, mission, and enterprise, including its business and operations; hold themselves accountable and undertake routine self-evaluations, are passionate advocates for the institution; adhere to the principle of continuous process improvement, outcomes, and ethics; focus on value creation, effective control, and legitimacy of their efforts, and last but not least, do not let their personal or political views influence their work and, rather, are singularly focused on the institution’s success.

Along the above lines, in an excellent essay published in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, McKinsey and Company offer simple and effective insights for effective governing boards, including: setting and monitoring shared purpose and strategy; recruiting, hiring, supporting, and evaluating the institution’s chief executive officer; undertaking assessment of governance performance objectives; providing oversight and support of budget priorities and fundraising and other development activities; helping set and evaluate institutional performance indicators, particularly as related to student success and closing equity gaps; ensuring risk mitigation and management, particularly as related to local, state, and federal regulations, accreditation, and other legal and regulatory obligations; and serving as ambassadors and advocates for the institution with its various stakeholders.

In considering the critical duties board members must be cognizant of and exercise, experts point to the Duty of Care, Duty of Loyalty, and Duty of Obedience that often are tied to fiduciary responsibilities, but which in my mind are relevant more broadly, particularly trust, as it relates to the relationship between a trustee and the institution.

Duty of Care refers to the obligation to provide the level of care to protect the interests of the institution, setting aside personal or professional interests, which derives from: Being knowledgeable about and adhering to the bylaws and policies of the board, the institution, and applicable regulations and laws; practicing good governance; respecting and soliciting input from all members of the board; becoming informed about the institution’s mission, goals, and strategic direction; being prepared for board and committee meetings; actively participating in meetings; being alert to potential concerns and problems; becoming knowledgeable about the various issues and topics being considered before making decisions; providing guidance by contributing to institution’s culture, strategic focus, effectiveness, and financial sustainability; serving as fiduciaries by ensuring prudent use of all assets, including facilities, people, and good will; and fulfilling legal duties and obligations.

Duty of Loyalty relates to conflicts of interest, particularly in the context of political, social, economic, and financial self-interest and personal gain. What this requires is absolute and undivided allegiance to the institution and its well-being. Additional aspects of the Duty of Loyalty include ensuring that the institution’s activities and transactions advance its mission; stressing group welfare, consensus, and unity in governance and decision-making; making decisions that are in the best interest of the institution; and serving as ambassadors and advocates.

Duty of Obedience relates to respecting the limits of the governance structure’s power and using that power to help the institution fulfill its mission. In addition, Duty of Obedience requires ensuring the institution obeys applicable state and federal laws and regulations and NWCCU Standards, Eligibility Requirements, and Policies; and, adhering to the roles and responsibilities defined via the board’s bylaws, policies, purpose, and mission.

In addition to the above Duties, the Association of Governing Boards reminds us of the importance of the Duty to Act in Good Faith, which requires board members to exercise diligence, competence, and objectivity, and the Duty to Serve the Public Interest, which is about fiduciary responsibilities.

Aligned with federal regulations and in support of institutional well-being, NWCCU has explicit Standards and Eligibility Requirements related to governance and governing boards and their roles and responsibilities, including Standards 1.B.4, 2.A.1, 2.A.3, 2.D.3, and 2.E.3 and Eligibility Requirements 9, 10, and 11.

In addition, NWCCU offers various resources, webinars, workshops, and training sessions related to governance and governing boards, in partnership with various experts, including representatives of the Association of Governing Boards (AGB) and Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT).

Articles by AGB and ACCT related to governing issues are included in this edition of The Beacon.

In closing, at the Atlanta conference I referenced at the beginning of this article, “Making the Grade: Strategies for Success in Higher Education,” I had the privilege of listening to various experts, including retired Judge Stephen Robinson, a Cornell University Board of Trustees member. I was inspired by his comments regarding the role of board members; he stated, “their allegiance is to the institution and not their self-interest or political motivations, nor is to the president.” Board members, he said, “ensure that the institution is successful in achieving its mission and is there for the future.

From my perspective, good governance isn’t easy; it requires hard work to achieve the common good for the institution.

Postscript:

After I wrote my essay on governance and governing boards, on a lark, I decided on asking OpenAI’s ChatGPT, the generative artificial intelligence (AI) application that’s been in the news and which appears to be able to respond to all manner of queries, to respond to my question, “What is the most effective approach to governance in higher education?”

ChatGPT’s response is copied and pasted below verbatim:

The most effective governance of higher education depends on various factors, including the political, economic, and cultural context in which it operates. However, there are some general principles that can be followed to promote effective governance in higher education. These include:

1. Autonomy: Universities and colleges should have sufficient autonomy to make decisions about their academic programs, research, and student affairs. This autonomy should be balanced with accountability to stakeholders, including students, faculty, staff, and the public.
2. Transparency: Higher education institutions should be transparent in their decision-making processes, budgeting, and policies. This includes providing access to information about the institution’s performance, finances, and governance.
3. Stakeholder engagement: Effective governance requires meaningful engagement with stakeholders, including students, faculty, staff, alumni, and the public. Stakeholders should be involved in the decision-making process and provided opportunities for feedback and input.
4. Quality assurance: Higher education institutions should have robust systems in place to ensure quality in teaching, research, and student outcomes. These systems should be regularly evaluated and updated to ensure they are effective.
5. Diversity, equity, and inclusion: Effective governance should prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion in all aspects of the institution, including recruitment and retention of students, faculty, and staff. This includes promoting a culture of respect, tolerance, and inclusivity.
6. Continuous improvement: Governance of higher education institutions should be dynamic and adaptable to changing circumstances. Continuous improvement and evaluation of governance structures and processes should be prioritized.

Overall, effective governance of higher education requires a balance of autonomy, transparency, stakeholder engagement, quality assurance, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and continuous improvement.

I was quite impressed by ChatGPT’s statement on higher education governance.

ChatGPT offers a significant level of relevant, general principles that can be followed to promote effective governance in higher education; however, some critical aspects of governance that experts speak to, as described in the articles in this edition of The Beacon by representatives from AGB and ACCT, are missing or are glossed over.

AI applications are getting more and more sophisticated and could certainly play a role as an aide in higher education, but should not the primary source. Like others who have expressed concern about AI platforms and which should be addressed, ChatGPT gives me pause, but I am optimistic about the future role of AI applications in various aspects of higher education. NWCCU will be convening conversations and webinars this year on AI platforms.

The post V5I3: Letter from the President appeared first on NWCCU.