Each survey provided valuable insights that were constructive and insightful. Executive summaries of the responses can be found at these links. More detailed survey results are coming soon.  

• Executive Summary of Institutional Responses 
• Executive Summary of Peer Evaluator Responses

To keep stakeholders informed, we have a standards revision webpage with goals, timelines, activities, and summaries of completed steps available.  

Next steps include an initial draft of the revisions to be developed and shared with the BSP in preparation for extensive opportunities for feedback from stakeholders beginning with the 2025 NWCCU Annual Conference.  

At any point in the process if you have questions or wish to provide feedback, please do so through your institutional staff liaison, Executive Vice President Ed Harri (eharri@nwccu.org), or through the Standards Review Public Comment form. 

The post V7I4: Standards Review and Revision Process Update appeared first on NWCCU.

With our continuing series of articles demystifying the 2020 Standards for Accreditation, NWCCU aims to support and guide its member institutions on their journey of continuous improvement to promote student success and close achievement gaps. In this latest article, we discuss Standard 2.I.1, which is a foundational standard on which the other Standards build (excuse the pun!).  This is a crucial Standard that expands upon the stipulations of Eligibility Requirement #15. 

As discussed in a previous Beacon article, the physical environment and technology infrastructure of an institution form the base for effective planning and operations (Standard 1.B) that lead to student learning (Standard 1.C) and student achievement (Standard 1.D). See Figure 1. Specifically, Standard 2.I.1 also provides the basis for the requirement of “effective learning environments” in Standard 2.G.1.  

Standard Two – Governance, Resources, and Capacity 

Physical and Technology Infrastructure 

 2.I.1 Consistent with its mission, the institution creates and maintains physical facilities and technology infrastructure that are accessible, safe, secure, and sufficient in quantity and quality to ensure healthful learning and working environments that support and sustain the institution’s mission, academic programs, and services. 

Mission-Driven Design

The intent of Standard 2.I.1 is for the institution to establish and maintain physical facilities and technology infrastructure that align with, support, and sustain the institution’s mission. The alignment of physical facilities and technology infrastructure with the institution’s mission is crucial and ensures that the infrastructure not only supports but also enhances the institution’s goals and objectives. A research-focused university might prioritize state-of-the-art laboratories and research centers, while a liberal arts college might place greater emphasis on creating collaborative learning spaces. For a tribal college, emphasizing cultural spaces that honor and integrate indigenous cultures, values, and traditions could be a priority. For some institutions, incorporating sustainable practices in the design and maintenance of facilities and technology infrastructure would align with broader institutional goals of environmental stewardship. 

 Accessibility: Bridging the Gap 

Aligned with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), accessibility is a cornerstone of any educational institution’s infrastructure. It ensures that all students, faculty, and staff, regardless of physical abilities, can fully participate in the academic community. This includes: 

• Physical Accessibility: Buildings and facilities must comply with ADA standards, including ramps, elevators, and accessible restrooms. Classrooms and common areas should be designed to accommodate individuals with mobility challenges. 
• Technological Accessibility: Per federal regulation Section 508, digital platforms and resources must be accessible to all users, including those with visual, auditory, or cognitive impairments. This involves the use of screen readers, captioned videos, and accessible web design. 

Institutions must regularly assess and update their facilities and technology to ensure they meet these standards, fostering an inclusive environment where everyone can thrive. 

Safety and Security: Protecting the Community 

The safety and security of physical facilities and technology infrastructure are critical to maintaining a healthful learning and working environment. This encompasses: 

• Physical Safety: Regular maintenance and inspections of buildings and facilities to prevent accidents and ensure compliance with safety regulations. This includes fire safety measures, secure entry points, and well-lit campuses. 
• Cybersecurity: Protecting the institution’s digital infrastructure from cyberattacks is essential. This involves implementing robust cybersecurity measures, such as firewalls, encryption, and regular security audits to safeguard sensitive data and maintain the integrity of digital systems. 

Institutions must develop comprehensive safety and security plans, conduct regular drills, and provide training to staff and students to ensure preparedness for any potential threats. 

Sufficiency in Quantity and Quality: Meeting the Needs 

To support and sustain the institution’s mission, academic programs, and services, facilities and technology infrastructure must be sufficient in both quantity and quality. This includes: 

• Adequate Facilities: Ensuring there are enough classrooms, laboratories, libraries, and recreational spaces to accommodate the student population. Facilities should be equipped with modern amenities and resources that enhance the learning experience. 
• Advanced Technology: Investing in up-to-date technology infrastructure, including high-speed internet, state-of-the-art computer labs, and advanced research equipment as may be relevant to the institution’s mission. This also involves providing ongoing technical support and training for faculty and students. 

Institutions should regularly evaluate their facilities and technology to identify areas for improvement and ensure they are meeting the evolving needs of their academic community. 

Evaluation 

Standard 2.I.1 is evaluated as part of the Policies, Regulations, and Financial Review (PRFR) process. However, because the PRFR is a desk audit, assessment of the physical infrastructure is also included in the comprehensive, onsite Year 7 Evaluation of Institutional Effectiveness (EIE) peer evaluation.  

For their PRFR self-evaluation report, institutions must provide evidence for compliance with Standard 2.I.1 as outlined in the PRFR Panel Template by providing a Facilities Master Plan. 

Facilities Master Plan 

An institution’s facilities master plan is its blueprint for ensuring that its physical and technology infrastructure components are sufficient and well maintained. This plan should cover the various aspects mentioned above and include: 

• Equipment Replacement Policies/Procedures: With the rapid pace at which technology changes, it is critical that institutions have policies and procedures in place to maintain and update equipment needed for day-to-day operations. For institutions that offer credentials in high-tech fields, it is essential to plan for the maintenance of quality and currency of the required technical infrastructure as well as training for faculty and staff using the technology. In addition to policies and procedures, institutions could provide budgetary evidence of resources allocated towards this goal. 
• Sufficiency of Physical Facilities and Handling of Hazardous Waste: Institutions should share plans and procedures in place for evaluating the sufficiency of physical facilities, especially with the development of new programs and/or enrollment growth. Institutions should provide evidence of policies and/or procedures for the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. 
• Policies and Procedures for Ensuring Accessible, Safe, and Secure Facilities: In addition to the requirements of the ADA, institutions are expected to ensure safe and secure facilities for all students. Given the rising incidents of gun violence on college campuses, it is crucial for institutions to establish comprehensive procedures and plans to address situations involving active shooters. The recent surge in political unrest also necessitates that campuses develop contingency plans to address the occupation of premises by protestors. In case of interruption of educational programming due to various natural or human-caused disasters, institutions are expected to have established plans for continuity of operations. Standard 2.I.1 does not specifically mention continuity of operations because that expectation is included in ER15. Institutions with residential facilities should provide information regarding the policies, procedures, and plans in place to ensure that those facilities are accessible, safe, and secure. 
• Technology Master Plan and Planning Processes: A technology master plan is crucial for institutions to ensure the security and efficiency of their operations. With the increasing threat of cyberattacks, a comprehensive plan helps safeguard sensitive student and employee data. It outlines strategies for robust cybersecurity measures, including regular updates and monitoring systems to detect and respond to threats promptly. By prioritizing data security and technological advancement, institutions can protect their community and maintain trust, fostering a safe and innovative learning environment. 

Continuous Improvement: A Commitment to Excellence 

NWCCU expects its institutions to adhere to the principle of continuous improvement in upholding high standards for physical facilities and technology infrastructure. Conducting regular assessments and audits of facilities and technology, staying abreast of technological changes, and maintaining an updated strategic facilities master plan are three ways that institutions can ensure their infrastructure remains effective, relevant, and aligned with their mission and goals. By committing to continuous improvement, institutions can ensure that their facilities and technology infrastructure remain at the forefront of educational excellence. 

The creation and maintenance of accessible, safe, secure, and sufficient physical facilities and technology infrastructure are vital to the success of higher education institutions. These elements are foundational to providing a healthful learning and working environment that supports and sustains the institution’s mission, academic programs, and services and where students, faculty, and staff can thrive and achieve their full potential.  

Postscript: In alignment with NWCCU’s multipronged approach to supporting institutions, we will invite member institutions that are excelling in meeting this Standard to share their leading practices in future issues of the Beacon. 

The post V7I2: Demystifying Standard 2.I.1: Ensuring Excellence in Physical Facilities and Technology Infrastructure 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.

As a staff liaison to a number of NWCCU member institutions, I have the opportunity to regularly observe the impressive work our member institutions undertake to advance student success. Many have been inspired by peer institutions effectively tackling similar challenges resulting in demonstrated improvements in their student outcomes. NWCCU strongly believes in the power of peer learning for institutional continuous improvement. It is a major contributor to developing clear and coherent strategies for improving student outcomes and closing gaps in achievement between different student populations.  

NWCCU’s 2020 Standards for Accreditation 1.D.2 and 1.D.3 reflect these commitments to the use of disaggregated student achievement data, benchmarked against institutionally-identified peers, to support continuous improvement.  

Challenges  

Since adoption of the Standards, approximately half of the institutions (39 of 80) that completed their year-seven, Evaluation of Institutional Effectiveness received a Recommendation on either Standard 1.D.2 or 1.D.3. A Recommendation refers either to the evaluation team’s final statements or its confidential advice to NWCCU regarding an institution’s accreditation or candidacy status.  

Recommendations related specifically to Standards 1.D.2 or 1.D.3 are the result of a number of factors, including but not limited to lack of evidence for:  

• Use of disaggregated data for regular planning and review processes. 
• Benchmarking against regional and national peers. 
• Public posting of student achievement outcomes. 

While some of these deficiencies become evident through the institutional self-study and peer evaluation visit and report, institutions and peer evaluators have indicated they struggle in interpreting elements of Standards 1.D.2 and 1.D.3, specifically on the selection of peers, disaggregation of data requirements, and presenting and using data. This makes it challenging for institutions to effectively demonstrate and report on practices they use to address the Standards. Consequently, it becomes difficult for peer evaluation teams to evaluate these practices in the report and visit.   

Guidance  

In an effort to provide institutions with support and clarity that enables them to productively move forward in what we consider critical Standards for demonstrating continuous improvement, NWCCU has created guidance for Standards 1.D.2 and 1.D.3. The guidance describes the purpose of these specific Standards. This includes ensuring that institutions: 

• Define and use relevant student achievement indicators for planning, resource allocation, and improvement.  
• Disaggregate their own student achievement data to identify equity gaps and inform strategies for closing gaps.  
• Identify peer institutions and benchmark their student achievement data to measure student achievement efforts. 
• Publicize their student achievement indicators on their website for prospective students, faculty and staff, members of the public, and other stakeholders. 

Frequently asked questions related to these Standards are also addressed in the guidance document, including the number of peer institutions to be identified, best practices in selecting peers, requirements for disaggregation of data, and presenting and using data.  

The NWCCU Board of Commissioners was afforded an opportunity to discuss and provide input to the guidance during the Commission meeting in January 2024. Similarly, the guidance has been provided via email in February 2024 to chief executive officers, academic officers, and accreditation liaison officers (ALO) of NWCCU member institutions. In addition to discussion of the guidance during the ALO Townhall in February 2024, we will incorporate the guidance into peer evaluator refresher training sessions to be held during Summer 2024.  

Our goal is to have evaluators become prepared to ask questions of institutions related to this guidance starting with the Fall 2024 peer evaluation cycle, as envisioned in NWCCU’s Mission and Vision to promote access, belonging, and success of all students. In doing so, our intent is to advance data-informed peer evaluation, which incorporates use of institutional data as a formative, continuous improvement approach to promoting student achievement and success.  

Please note that these efforts will be further supported by the institutional data dashboards being developed and deployed by NWCCU’s Vice President of Data Science and Analytics, Jess Stahl. Dr. Stahl’s article describes these dashboards in more detail. 

Institutional Examples 

A number of institutions are already demonstrating strengths in their use and presentation of disaggregated data. Examples include:  

• Saint Martin’s University: SMU has publicly available dashboards comparing their student achievement outcomes to their identified peer institutions.  
• University of Western States: UWS took the lead in developing a data-sharing agreement with other graduate health professions institutions and uses these data to compare student success and progress.  
• Whatcom Community College: WCC has an extensive history of comprehensive college, program, and course-level disaggregated student achievement and outcomes assessment data publicly available in various forms. 
• Western Washington University: WWU has recently updated its public-facing dashboards to provide years of data on enrollment, graduation, and and retention compared to different peer groups, including aspirational peers.  

We anticipate that institutions will be able to further demonstrate their efforts on these Standards in the near future, leading to more examples to share with our members.  

Please continue to share with your staff liaison feedback and your own examples of data presentation and peer comparisons. We have been using your feedback to provide this improved guidance, which should only help to strengthen our commitment to these Standards and institutional demonstrations of improved student outcomes. 

The post V6I3: Peer Comparators and Student Success  appeared first on NWCCU.

 

Gita Bangera, Senior Vice President, NWCCU

With the deployment of the 2020 Standards for Accreditation in January 2020, NWCCU has been engaged in supporting its member institutions to develop data-informed approaches to promote student success and close equity gaps.

The multipronged approach has included a number strategies, such as: workshops, webinars, and training to our institutions to develop skills and capacity to use data and benchmarking to compare against peers; articles in The Beacon on demystifying NWCCU Standards as related to institutional planning and governance, assessment, and student achievement; and development of data dashboards as decision support tools for peer evaluators and commissioners.

In the previous issue of The Beacon, Senior Vice President Ron Larsen discussed the “what” and the “how” of NWCCU’s Standard 1.D – the student achievement standard.

The focus of this article is on the “why,” (i.e., the rationale and intent behind Standard 1.D.).

Standard 1.D is about fostering an institutional environment to promote student success and close achievement gaps informed by peer benchmarking. It requires that institutions demonstrably create the culture, environment, infrastructure, and practices to promote access, belonging, and success for all students.

The intent of Standard 1.D.1 is that the institution, consistent with its mission, recruits and admits students who would benefit from the programs being offered. The expectation is that the institution provides relevant and usable information regarding programs and requirements, their outcomes for students, debt that past students have incurred, and the earnings potential of graduates from those programs. This standard also ensures that once admitted, the institution provides the student with information for them to chart a clear path to success.

Standard 1.D.2 and 1.D.3 provide guidance for institutions to operationalize their commitment to ensuring success of all students and to specifically help mitigate equity gaps. This should be based on use of disaggregated, institutionally meaningful and publicized indicators, benchmarked against regional and national peer comparators.

Why indicators?

Student achievement is the culmination of the educational program offered by the institution, which meets or exceeds NWCCU Standards (Figure 1) and indicators of student achievement help the institution and NWCCU assess its mission fulfillment. The indicators of student achievement required by Standard 1.D highlight the core elements of institutional effectiveness and mission fulfillment. These indicators vary with the unique mission of each institution, however, there are some common indicators such as retention through courses or programs, transferring to another institution offering a four-year degree, earning a credential, or moving on to post-graduate employment or to graduate programs. For some students, indicators of success could also be successful licensure, the self-fulfillment of learning a skill for enjoyment, or up-skilling to receive a promotion or other advancement at work.

Why disaggregate?

Disaggregation allows the institution to visualize the success of all of its students and identify which groups of students are not served well by the current system, particularly marginalized or minoritized students based on characteristics such as, for example, race, ethnicity, age, gender, socioeconomic status, first generation college student, and any other institutionally meaningful categories. Not all institutions would have data on every characteristic or be able to disaggregate by all of these characteristics in a manner that protects student privacy, but it is critical that institutions disaggregate their data to the extent possible, aligned with their unique mission to help them identify equity gaps. By having a clear picture of which groups of students are not being served effectively, institutions can make evidence–informed resource allocation decisions to support students that may be falling behind.

A second reason for disaggregation of the achievement data is transparency. Current and prospective students, faculty and staff, members of the public, and other stakeholders should be able to assess an institution’s capacity to support and educate students who come from various backgrounds. The requirement under Standard 1.D.3 to widely publish disaggregated data, including on the institution’s website, allows potential students and families to make informed decisions about enrolling at the institution (see Standard 1.D.1).

Why benchmark?

By benchmarking student success indicators against in-state and regional comparators, institutions identify peers who perform within similar constraints and learn from comparators that better support student success under those circumstances. Similarly, comparison with national peers helps to understand how other institutions with similar attributes, but functioning in a different geographical context, may have overcome similar problems. Benchmarking, therefore, is really a way to identify best practices to promote student success and achievement.

Standard 1.D requires NWCCU member institutions to self-assess their capacity to ensure student success as a measure of effectiveness of mission fulfillment, to share that assessment with current and prospective students and the general public, and to use the assessment data to inform resource allocation. NWCCU will continue to offer workshops and training to support institutions in their journey towards greater transparency and closing equity gaps.

The post V6I2: Demystifying NWCCU’s Student Achievement Standards Part II appeared first on NWCCU.

The post V6I1: Student Centered, Data Informed appeared first on NWCCU.

The post V6I1: Demystifying NWCCU’s Student Achievement Standards appeared first on NWCCU.

The post V5I4: Demystifying NWCCU’s Assessment Standards appeared first on NWCCU.

 

Paul N. Friga, Ph.D. and Chris Moloney, Ph.D., Association of Governing Boards

The Governing Board and Accreditation

Accreditation is one of the hallmarks of higher education and serves a critical role building and maintaining public trust that our cherished colleges and universities will deliver on their promise of quality education for all. In recent years, however, public trust in higher education has eroded. At the same time that pressure on accreditors to assure that students’ best interests and public funding mandates for outcomes are being met has increased. The members of the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities know this and have identified the importance of governance in this process.

The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) has a long history of working with boards, trustees, and institutions to strengthen governance, institutional prosperity, and student success. In 2022, AGB teamed with CHEA, the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, to identify updated accreditation guidance for boards of both public and private institutions operating in the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous environment that defines the modern era of higher education.

We believe that higher education is undergoing significant transformation and, as the chief stewards of the mission of colleges and universities, boards must play an active role in setting strategy, monitoring results, and ensuring their institutions have the capacity and capability to fulfil accreditation requirements. The importance of good board governance to the long-term health, sustainability, and prosperity of America’s system of higher education cannot be understated. To be blunt, the highest performing, most successful institutions often have the highest performing boards and most robust governance structures. Good, and great, governance is paramount as leaders of colleges and universities deal with declining enrollments, challenging fiscal management, civil unrest, stress on campuses and overall increases in accountability.

A Journey of Collaborative Governance

The first step is education for boards. Many trustees and regents, while loyal champions of their schools, may lack a deep understanding of the unique nature of higher education and the consequences of macro forces on each institution’s pursuit of its mission. AGB often delivers educational programs, workshops, retreats and assessments with a goal of educating board members on how they can operationalize changes in the world at large to changes in system or campus level strategy. From a governance perspective, a diverse board can offer valuable insights for a campus but must be clear on its role vs the role of the cabinet and management. Shown below is a diagram of the key elements of navigating such a journey of collaborative governance.

We begin by understanding the potential gap between the current positioning and offerings of an institution with the changing external environment. Questions to ask include “what are the three most important macro forces that will affect our ability to execute on our strategic plan?”, “are we operating at a positive operating margin and what are our projections?” and “do we offer degrees and non-degree programs that are aligned with student and employer demand?”. Another aspect of the environment to consider is external influences. Boards need to be solely focused on their role as stewards of the institution and its mission. Even while interacting with other groups, board priorities and actions must be focused on the long-term success of the college or university. Individual board members must take the initiative to learn about the standards of accreditation and how they relate to board ongoing and potential future discussions.

When it comes to setting strategy, boards should be involved early, provide input, approve and monitor strategic plans or frameworks. It is important to allow the leaders of the institution actually craft and implement the strategy – for better content and buy-in for implementation. The board should be engaged in helping identify high-level strategic directions or imperatives and should ask for dashboards and high-level results. Boards should not get involved in operational or management level decisions on campus, but certainly should be advocates for university philanthropy.

Finally, the board should ensure that strategy and action are aligned with mission. Accreditation always starts with mission and differentiation: why is this particular institution here and what is the unique value-add? Modern strategic planning has to be shorter and focused on a smaller set of priorities that really matter to the institution. Boards can approve overall budgets, and help allocated necessary resources, but should also be involved in multi-year forecasting and return on investment conversations.

Taking Action

How do we accomplish better governance, both to strengthen the institution overall and specifically related to achieving more positive accreditation outcomes? As noted, AGB has been a vocal advocate for strengthening higher education governance for over 100 years, and has published numerous articles and reports, including two with CHEA (2009 and 2022), specifically focused on the board and trustee’s role in accreditation.

First, it is critical that trustees and the board understand the accreditation standards and expectations of their national (formerly regional) accrediting organization, and in particular any specific requirements or expectations that directly relate to board or campus-wide governance. Many institutions across the country come up short when evaluated on issues of campus shared governance, a complex and challenging issue, but one that AGB helps institutions navigate on a frequent basis. Likewise, while AGB strongly urges that all governing boards engage in regular, reflective, board self-assessment, particularly with an external, expert facilitator, too many neglect this opportunity to identify issues before they become problems and instead treat regular board self-assessment as a “check-the-box” exercise. This could be a mistake, since external facilitators bring an awareness of what other, innovative and strong boards are doing, which can be incredibly helpful.

Second, even though institutional re-accreditation may occur only once during a board member’s service, the stakes are high and rising, meaning this is an event and process that all trustees must be well-versed in and able to support. Long gone are the days when a higher education trustee could fly in for a board meeting and then alight, never to return reengage until the next committee or full-board meeting. While American higher education governance is defined by the voluntary nature of trusteeship, acting as a high-performing individual fiduciary, increasingly resembles a job (in some cases almost a full-time job!). In other words, individual board members must engage at a deeper level and embrace the principles of trusteeship (which AGB has written a book about), namely understanding governance, thinking strategically, and leading by example. To the extent that individual trustees embrace the principles of trusteeship, the anatomy of the board as a collective, including its culture, processes, policies and ability to exercise strong governance in collaboration with the Chief Executive, will improve. The best boards, and thus those with the greatest capacity and capability to support accreditation efforts, will have the right high performing trustees, connected with the right relationships to each other, the chief executive, the campus and the community, oriented toward the right strategic focus.

Finally, it is worth highlighting and summarizing the key recommendations from the AGB-CHEA joint statement on governance and accreditation, depicted graphically below:

You may have noticed a common theme of advice for boards centers around education. Many board members have not been exposed to the unique objectives of higher education accreditation, but this is easily addressed by bringing in external speakers, attend conferences, which can now both be achieved a lower cost thanks to worldwide transition to virtual meeting platforms. Moreover, seeking external expertise is a great way to elevate meaningful real-world examples and self-studies that can assist the board in learning more about accreditation and ensuring that the university is continually on track.

Advice for CEOs (Presidents and Chancellors), not surprisingly emphasizes finding ways to engage the board and keep them appropriately informed regarding the accreditation process. However, the institutional leader and his or her team, also bear the responsibility of ensuring campus stakeholder groups, especially faculty, are engaged in the accreditation process, as well as lifting back up to the board any critical issues raised in the review process that require their attention and input. We recommend reading the full report from AGB, issued in collaboration with CHEA and wish you the best in your governance of accreditation.

About AGB

The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) is the premier organization focused on empowering college, university, and foundation boards to govern with knowledge and confidence. Over its 100+ year history, AGB has been at the forefront in advocating for America’s unique system of higher education governance and supporting institutions of all types as they navigate both governance and strategic challenges. Governing boards and institutional leaders in higher education must focus now more than ever on strategic leadership of their institutions and foundations to ensure institutional vitality and student success. It is critical that they reinforce the value of higher education, innovate through the effective use of technology, and serve the needs of a shifting demographic. AGB provides leadership and consulting advisory services to Higher Education boards, chief executives, staff, policymakers, and other key industry leaders to help them navigate the changing education landscape.

About the Authors:

Paul N. Friga, PhD, is a clinical associate professor of strategy at the UNC Kenan-Flagler School of Business, senior consultant at AGB and a former Trustee at Saint Francis University.

Chris Moloney, PhD, is the senior director of AGB Consulting and a teacher and scholar in higher education, serving as an instructor for multiple institutions, including Colorado State University.

Additional AGB Resources Noted in this Article:

1. AGB – CHEA Joint Advisory Statement on Accreditation and Governing Boards – 2022
2. Principles of Trusteeship
3. Anatomy of Good Board Governance in Higher Education
4. Improve Your University’s Governance

The post V5I3: The Important Role of Boards in the Governance of Accreditation appeared first on NWCCU.

The post V5I3: Demystifying Institutional Planning and Governance appeared first on NWCCU.