DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 054 743 HE 002 545TITLE Annual Report 1970, Commission on institutions of

Higher Education.INSTITUTION North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary

Schools, Chicago, Ill.PUB DATE Mar 71NOTE 28p.

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS *Accreditation (Institutions) ; *Annual Reports;

Evaluation; *Higher EducationIDENTIFIERS *Commisson on Institutions of Higher Education

ABSTRACTThis Annual Report of the Commission on institutions

of Higher Education reviews the major policies and procedures throughwhich the commission carries out its function of accreditation ofinstitutions in the North Central Association area. The-Commission isResponsible for the establishment of criteria to evaluate highereducation institutions, for aiding interested institutions inattaining membership in the Association, for assisting memberinstitutions in the improvement and extension of their programs/ forthe conduct of workshops for consultants and examiners, and for thestudy of matters of common concern to colleges and universities. Thepolicies discussed are: (1) correspondent status for nonaccreditedinstitutions; (2) recognized candidate for accreditation status; (3)

accredited status; (4) the periodic review of member institutions;(5) the preliminary and full accreditation of member institutionsundergoing substantive change; (6) separate accreditation of campusesin multicampus systems; and (7) transfer of accreditation. Theofficial procedures of the Commission are reproduced at theconclusion of the report. (AF)

EGES ANII SEdONDARY -SCH1

-

NORTHCENT-RAL

ASSOCIATION 7:= -/-

.a - S.

- a a-

na arkansa colOrado indiana iowa- kansas # michigaimin esota m ssouri .-.::7nebraska - new mexico north dakota ohio

wVomingokiahoma - south dakota west virginia wisconsin

EXECUTIVE BOARD

(Members of the Executive Board a e automatically members of the Commission)

Choi-man: DoNALD C. Roils L Academic Vice President, New Mexico State University,Las Cruces, New Mexico 88001 (1972)

Vice Chairman: RoBERT L. CLODIUS. Vice President, Un versity of Wisconsin. Madison,Wisconsin 53706 (1973)

COLmAN J. BARRY. O.S.B., President, Saint John's University, Collegeville, Minnesota56321 (1974)

WADE ELIAS.. Associabs Dean, Graduate School, and P o essor of Mathema Univer-sity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48;04 (1975)

E. S. FRENCH, President, Northeastern Junior C-Alege. Sterling, Colorado 80751 1972)

ROBERT J. KELLER. Professor of Education, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.Minnesota 55455 (1971)

F. HALeLD MATTHEWS. Dean, Vocational-Technical Education, Jackson CommunizyCollege, Jackson, Michigan 49201 (1972)

JOHN J. P RuIS, President. Ball State University, Muncie Indiana 47306 (1975)

PAUL H. SILVERmAN, Professor of Zoology, University of him n(1974)

Urbana, Illinois 61801

FRED C. SUTTON. Dean of Technical-Vocational Educa ion, Cuyahoga CommunityCollege-Metropolitan Campus, Cleveland, Ohio 44115 (1974 )

SHARVY G. UmBEcK, President, Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois 61401 (1971)

L Lcrin E. WORNER. President, Colorado College, Colorado Springs, Colorado 8090 973)

STAFF OF THE COMMISSION

Executive Secretary: NOR4. AN BURNS, Professor of EdueaChicago, Illinois

on, Univer-ity of Chicago,

Associate Executive Secretary: JosEPH J. SEN1Row. 5454 SouthIllinois 60615

Assistant Executive Secretary: ROBERT C. BARTLWinois 60615

Shore Drive, Chicago,

TT. 5454 South Shore Drive, Chicago,

Assistant Executive Secretary: THomAs J. CoFFEy. 5454 SouthIllinois 60615

Assistant Executive Sec ary: ThomAs A. GILLIS. 5454 SoIllinois 60615

Administrative Assistant: CATHERINEIllinois 60615

Shore Drive, Chicago,

h Shore Drive, Chicago,

MCQUARRIE, 5454 South Shore Drive, Chicago,

COMMIS:AONERS

Class of 1971WILLARD L. BOYD. President. University of lowa. Iowa City, Iowa 52240ERNEST V. CLEMENTS. President, Wright College, City Colleges of Chicago, Chicago,

Illinois 60634E. D. FARWELL. President, Luther College, Decorah, Iowa 52101PHILIP J. GANNON. President, Lansing Community College, Lansing, Michigan 48914ELLSWORTH G ERRITZ, Dean of Admissions and Records, Kansas State University.

Manhattan, Kansas 66502PARKER E. LIC!;TEN'TEIN, Professor of Psychology, Denison University. Glanville,

Ohio 43023WILLIAM J. MICHEELS, President, Stout State University, Menomonie, Wisconsin

54'751JOHN P. R AYNOR, S. J., President, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53233PAUL W. RENICH. President, Kansas Wesleyan University, Salina, Kansas 67401J. LAWRENCE WALKUP, President, Northern Arizona University, Flagst-Ifi", Arizora. 86001WESLEY M. WESTEBBLRG. President, Kendall College, Evanston, T ais 60204

Class uf 1972ROBERT P. ASHLEY, Vice President and Dean of the College, Ripon College, Ripon,

Wisconsin 54971RODNEY B ERG. President, College of DuPage, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137RICHARD L. -CUTLER, Professor of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,

Michigan 48104KARL H. DANNENFELDT, Academic Vice President, Arizona State Universitv, Tempe,

Arizona 85281;FOE E. E LMORE. Vice President, for Academic Affairs and Dean of the College, Earlham

College, Richmond, Indiana 47374CONRAD HILBERRY,. Professor of English, Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo, Michigan

49001PAUL G. JENSON. Vice President for Academie Affairs, 7c-,mple Buell College, Denver,

Colorado 80220WILLIAm F. KELLEY, S. J., Director, Governmental Relations and Special Resources,

Creighton Univ ersity, Omaha, Nebraska 68131DONALD B. KINO. Dean, St. Norbert College, West DePere, Wisconsin 54178RALPH D. NORMAN, Professor of Psychology, University. of New Mexico, Albuqueique,

New Mexico 87106SILAS D. SNOW, President, State College of Arkansas, Conway, Arkansas 72032A. MERVIN TYSON. Vice President for Academic Affairs, Marshall University, Hunt-

ington, West Virginia 25701

Class of 1973ROBERT P. COBB, Associate Dean of Faculties for International Programs, University

of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66044M ARION G. D ONALDSON. District V:ce President, and Executive Dean, Scott dale Com-

munity College, Scottsdale, Arizona 85252LEE S. DREYFUS, President, Wisconsin State University, Stevens Point, Wisconsin 54481JAMES G. HARLOW, President, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia

26506E LMER JAGOW. President, Hiram College, Hiram, Ohio 44234CHARLESJ. MCCLAIN. President, Northeast Missouri State College, Kirksville, Missouri

63501WILLIAM E. NEPTUNE, Dean of Liberal Arts, Oklahoma Baptist University, Shawnee,

Oklahoma 74801PAUL F. SHARP, President, Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa 50311IRVIN O. WYLLIE, Chancellor, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Kenosha, Wisconsin

53140

Class of 1974

CHARLES M. BARNES, President, Dodge City Community Junior College, Dodge City.Kansas 67801

JAY BARTON, Provost for instruction, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WestVirginia 26506

WALTER C. DANIEL, President, Lincoln University, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101ROLAND DILLE, Presideni, Moorhead State College, Moorhead, Minnesota 56560EDWARD B. ESPENSHADE. Professor of Geography, Northwestern Un'versity, Evanston,

Illinois 60201RALPH S. FJELSTAD, Congdon Professor of Government, Carleton College, Northfield,

Minnesota 55057WALLACE B. GRAVES, President, University of Evansville, Evansville, Indiana 47704VIVIAN H. HEWER, Professor of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,

Minnesota 55455ALBERT .1. REISS. JR., Chairman, Department of Sociology, University of Michigan,

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104ROy B. SHILLING,. President, Hendrix College, Conway, Arkansas 72032ROBERT D. SWANSON, President, Alma College, Alma, Michigan 48801W. L. TOMPKINS, President, Missouri Valley College, Marshall, Missouri 65340JOHN E. VISSER, President, Kansas State Teachers College, Emporia, Kansas 66801JOSEPH F. WALL. Dean of the College, Grinnell College, Grinnell, Iowa 50112RALPH WERNER, President, Bismarck Junior College, Bismarck, North Dakota 58501

SECONDARY SCHOOL MEMBERS(Appointed by the Commission on Secondary Schools)

W. EARL HARMON. Principal, West High School, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53222 (1974)ALVIN MORRIS. Superintendent, Wichita, Public Schools, 428 S. Broadway, Wichita,

Kansas, 67202 (1971)SCOTT D. THOMSON, Superintendent, Evanston Township High School, Evanston,

Illinois 60204 (1973)

This Annual Report of the Commission onInstitutions of Higher Education presents an accountof the major activities of the Commission in carryingout its function of accreditation of institutions inthe North CentralAssociation area. This area whichcovers 19 states includes 575 accredited institutions,51 Recognized Candidates for Accreditation and 91Correspondent institutions. These institutions arelisted in the summer issue of the North CentralAssociation Quarterly.

With the publication of this Annual Reportthe Commission is using a new format in order toprovide interested publics with more informationabout its activities. In prior years the Proceedingsof the Commission which are reported annually inthe summer issue of the North Central AssociationQuarterly served as the means of conveying informa-tion about the activities of the Commission. However,because of the increasing concerns of the Commission,the continued and dramatic growth in numbers andvariety of institutions and students enrolled in insti-tutions of higher education following World War II,and because of the increasIng importance of the func-tion of accreditation, a reporc of broader scope seemedneessary and appropriate.

In the following pages we have traced the de-velopment of the policies and procedures of the Com-mission that reflect its attempt to respond effectivelyto the demand for maintenance of quality in highereducation. The increasing dimensions of the Commis-sion's role, we believe, reveal a sensitivity to assistinstitutions in meeting the challenges they continual-ly face in responding to the needs of American society.

Our appreciation is extended to all those whohave contributed so generously of their time and ef-fort to the work of the Commission.Donald RoushChairmanNorman BurnsExecutive Secretary

NTRODUCTION

The Commission on Institutions of Higher Educationis one of three constituent Commissions of the North CentralAssociation of Colleges and Secondary Schools. The two othermajor components are the Commission on Secondary Schoolsand the Commission on Research and Service. Informationconceini-,g the Association as a whole and its Commissionsmay be found in the summer issue of the North Central As-sociation Quarterly. In addition, two volumes detailing thehistory of the Association have been published. They are AHistory of the North Central Association' and VoluntaryAccreditation. 2

This report will deal entirely with and reflect the pur-poses of the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education.This Commission is responsible for the establishment of cri-teria for the evaluation of institutions of higher education,for aiding interested institutions in attaining membership inthe Association, for assisting member institutions in the im-provement and the extension of their programs, for the con-duct of workshops for consultants and ex:-....minerE, and for thestudy of matters of common concern to colleges and univer-sities. Through a variety of means the Commission attemptsto contribute to the improvement of hight-Ir education in thetaci-4tor3T it serves.

viz. Calvin O. A History of the Nor h Central Association. Ann Arbor,Michigan: The North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools,1945.

2Geiger, Louis G. Voluntary Accreaitation. Menasha, Vri in: GeorgeBanta Company, 1970.

many respects the end of World War II marks awatershed for higher education in the United States. Manysocietal influences have converged during and since that timethat have profoundly affected the nature of the higher educa-tion enterprise. Universities have developed multicampussystems and state colleges have been transformed into multi-purpose institutions moving toward university status. Thenumber of junior-community colleges has grown at an as-tounding rate, while institutions offering technical-vocationaland occupational programs have assumed an increasing im-portance. New programs of study have been developed andexisting ones modified to meet new needs. A variety of mer-gers, consortia, and cooperative associations among institu-tions has taken place. From students, faculty members, publicofficials, and others have come challenges to the purposes,means, and the authority structure in higher education.

During this period the Commission on Institutions ofHigher Education has been undergoing marked change. Thepolicies and procedures under which it operates have beens'ibjected to continuing modification and refinement to meetthe increasing complexities and special problems in the fieldof higher education.

In attempting to improve its operations the Commis-sion has responded in a number of ways_ Among the develop-ments, the following seem to be of special significance andmerit some elaboration: (1) the training and orientation of aselected group of consultant-examiners who are available on acontinual and consistent basis for on-site evaluations; (2)the modification of the Commission's eligibility requirementsfor post-secondary institutions seeking membership in theAssociation; and (3) a reemphasis on self-study, stressingrevitalization and self-renewal.

The consultant-examiner corps is a group of individuals

chosen in recognition of their outstanding professional andacademic achievements, either in their respective disciplinesor as evidenced by the leadership positions they occupy inhigher education institutions. From this group teams are com-prised that will make on-si te visits to institutions for purposesof evaluation and accreditation. Since its inception, the con-sultant-examiner corps has been substantially strengthenedthrough a program of systematic recruitment and training ofpersonnel to be inducted to the corps. A preservice and anin-service program for the members constitutes an importantaspect of the work of the Commission. For example, a con-sultant-examiner conference is sponsored annually by theCommission to provide an opportunity for discussion ofdevelopments in higher education and ever-changing problemsin accreditation. In this period when evaluative criteria restheavily upon qualitative rather than quantitative measures,it is essential that persons of recognized authority and exper-tise in their respective fields can be called upon and becomeinvolved in the accrediting function.

It is the purpose of each on-site visiting team to compilea report of its findings, copies of which are sent to the institu-tion for its information and use. The report also becomes thebasis for decision-making with respect to an institution'sstatus. Over the last several years examining teams have con-ducted on the average of 150-160 evaluaidons of institutionsannually in the North Central area.

In seeking to keep pace with a system of higher educa-tion characterized by growing pluralism the Commission hasmodified the criteria for eligibility for accreditation to permitthe inclusion of virtually all segments of post-secondary edu-cation, including non-degree, post-secondary institutionsspecializing in vocational-technical or occupational education.Throughout its early history, the Commission was largelyconcerned with liberal arts colleges. Even in the evaluation of

the comprehensive university and the junior college, the foc2sof these early years was on the iberal arts component. Ashigher education in the United States came to be characterizedby greater diversity, the pressure on the Commission tobroaden its scope of accrediting activities increased. In 1958,the Commiszion adopted a policy which enabled speclalizedtypes of institutions art schools, music schools, seminaries,technical institutes to apply for membership in the Associa-tion. This was followed, as was noted earlier, by the furthermodification of eligibility criteria to permit non-degree, post-secondary institutions to apply for membership. Only thoseinstitutions in the occupational sector which are alreadyeligible for accreditation by a recognized professional accred-iting agency are ineligible.

Of prime importance to the Commission in this periodof rapid social change has been a reemphasis on the processof self-study on a systematic and continual basis. The Com-mission has adapted the self-study process to accommodatea variety of situations in which an institution may find itselfat particular stages of development.

The major activities of this accrediting Commissionare grouped under the following headings: Correspondent ofthe Commission; Recognized Candidate for Accreditation;Accredited Status; Periodic Review or Reexamination ofAccredited Institutions; Preliminary and Full Accreditationof Institutions Undergoing Substantive Change; SeparateAccreditation of Campuses in Multi-campus Systems; Trans-fer of Accreditation. Each of these activities is described inmore detail in the following pages.

Co respondent of the CommissionCorrespondent status offers non-member (non-accredit-

ed) institutions a publicly recognized status within the NorthCentral Association. Application for this status is optionaland available only to newly-established institutions. It isgranted to those institutions that appear to possess sufficientpotential strength to undergo an examination for RecognizedCandidate for Accreditation status in the relatively nearfuture.

Correspondent status, which was formally initiated in1967, provides the newly-established institution an opportu-nity to lay the groundwork for a more thorough self-study bythe development of an Institutional Analysis Report whichis completed in application for evaluation or examination.Following receipt and acceptance of the application by theCommission, a team of North Central Association examinersvisits the institution for an assessment of its potential forgrowth into an institution of acceptable quality. Copies of thereport of the examiners are sent to the institution, and thereport may become a useful reference for the institution infurther development. The recommendations of the team con-tained in the examiners' report with respect to the granting ofCorrespondent status are processed through the decision-making levels of the Commission and the Association forapproval.3 In the last five years 168 examinations for Corres-pondent status have been made. This resulted in 117 instanceswhere the status was approved and 51 cases in which thestatus was denied.

In this, as in other aspects of the Commission's work,every effort is made to assist institutions by communicating

3 The decision-making procedures of the Commission are explained in the finalsection of this report under the heading, "Procedures of the Commission onInstitutions of Higher Education."

5

the policies, procedures, and expectations of the Commissionto them. Most institutions holding Correspondent status availthemselves of consultant services provided by. the Commissionfor assistance in working toward accreditation. Failure tomake the appropriate degree of progress toward accreditationmay result in the institution's loss of Correspondent status.

Recognized Candidate for Accreditation Status_ _Recognized Candidate for Accreditation, usually the

next stage in the accreditation process, was originated in 1961.It represents a more advanced state of institutional develop-ment and institutions may apply for this status after theyhave been in operation one year. An institutional documentcalled the Status Study is filed with the Office of the Secretaryin application for an on-site examination for approval for thisstatus. The Status Study represents a higher level of institu-tional self-study and a more sophisticated understanding ofthe institution, its problems, and future course of develop-ment. This category is designed to give a formal status tothose institutions which are actively working toward accredi-tation and membership in the Association. Following accept-ance of the Status Study, an on-site evaluation is made by ateam of examiners. The examiners' report, as in the case ofCorrespondent status, becomes the basis for decision-makingby the Commission and the Association. The approval of in-stitutions for either Correspondent status or RecognizedCandidacy does not imply or guarantee eventual accreditation.

In the past five years 72 institutions were examinedfor Recognized Candidate for Accreditation status and 55institutions were approved. The majority of the institutionsapplying for either of the preaccredited statuses are two-yearjunior-community colleges.

6

Accredited StatusBasic to the procedures for application for accreditation

has been the self-study process. It should result in a highlysophisticated, self-analytical institutional document in whichthe emphasis is placed on an introspective analysis of institu-tional strengths and weaknesses and realistic plans and pro-jections for overcoming the weaknesses. Logically, the Self-Study builds upon and completes the work begun in the StatusStudy and Institutional Analysis Report. The Self-Study isan examination of all facets of the educational enterprise bythe various segments of the academic community. Each group

faculty, administration and students makes a contribu-tion to complete the total picture of the institution. The self-study process provides a means for involving the members ofa particular educational community in the life of the institu-tion. It permits greater understanding of the institution'spurposes and the means for, and its success in, achieving them.It points the way toward redirection, self-renewal, or revitali-zation where or when necessary. The Self-Study as an institu-tional document is ideally utilized as a reference point or basisfor future planning and growth.

Acceptance of the Self-Study by the Commission isfollowed by an on-site evaluation by a team of examinersselected from the consultant-examiner corps. The team filesits report of the examination with the Office of the Secretaryfor action by the Commission and the Association. The recom-mendations in the report form the basis on which the decisionis made on whetiier to accredit the applying institution. Thereport provides a useful analysis for the institution by anoutside group of visiting experts. In the past five years 60institutions were examined for accreditation and of these 49were approved.

7

The Periodic Review of Member InstitutionsThe program for the periodic review of accredited or

member institutions ( the terms are synonymous ) had a modestbeginning in the late fifties. Prior to that time, the only reviewof member institutions exercised by the Commission, otherthan those institutions that for some exceptional reason cameto the attention of the Commission, was through a system ofwritten reporting. This came to be recognized as a whollyinadequate means for appraising institutional quality. As aresult, self-study techniques were devised for member institu-tions and a schedule of on-site visits was instituted for evalua-tion purposes following the completion of the self-study ma-terials. Approximately one-tenth of the membership isreviewed each year.

In the beginning, the pre;sram of institutional on-siteevaluation by teams composed of members of the Commissionwas seen as mutually- beneficial both to the institutions andthe Commissioners. The primary thrust in this early stage wasthe mutual exchange of ideas that would contribute to overallimprovement of institutions in the membership. Typically,reviewing teams for even large, comprehensive institutionswere small, usually consisting of two or three members. Fromthis beginning a systematic program of regularly scheduledevaluation visits for reaccrediting purposes evolved. Inherentin this approach is the assumption that no institution willremain unchanged throughout its existence and that eachinstitution as it seeks to cope with changes and new influencescan benefit from the experiences of this program. At presenteach member institution is expected to demonstrate anew, atleast once every ten years, its qualifications for full status asan accredited institution through self-study and evaluationby an on-site visiting team. The process of .reexamination ofmember institutions has become as rigorous as an evaluationfor initial accreditation. The reports of the examiners become

not only the basis for accrediting decisions, but also serve asa useful means for internal control and assessment of progressby the institution.

Currently, 575 institutions have been accredited andare members of the North Central Association. The number,by highest degree level, is as follows:

Associate degree 114Bachelor's degree 260Master's degree 106First professional degree 2Specialist Degree 20Doctor's degree 73

Total 575The first ten-year review cycle was completed in 1968.

The Commission is now in the second cycle of periodic reviewof all member institutions. As the Commission gains exper-ience through this program, it is expected that the benefitsof the self-study and on-site evaluations will provide everincreasing assistance to institutions in developing ways tomaintain and improve the quality of their educational pro.grams.

The report to this point has related the essentialmechanisms and philosophy of the Commission with respectto the accreditation and reaccreditation of institutions. Cer-tain unique situations have arisen, particularly with respectto member institutions. The policies devised by the Commis-sion to render service to institutions in these special circum-stances are traced in the following paragraphs.

Preliminary and Full Accreditation of Member InstitutionsUndergoing Substantive Change

One of the dramatic developments in American highereducation in recent years has been the transformation of

9

14

simply organized, li ited purpose instimitions into multi-purpose institutions, many moving toward university status.In an effort to meet the rapidly expanding demands of Amer-ican society for educational opportunities at the professionalschool and graduate school levels, some institutions haveattempted to expand without proper regard for the mainten-ance of acceptable quality for both existing and rsrojected pro-grams. In response to the need for quality control in the caseof member institutions undergoing substantial expansion inthe range of their activities, the CoLinnission devised the policycalled "preliminary accreditation." Under this policy institu-tions moving to a higher degree level or contemplating a signi-ficant horizontal expansion of programs are expected to seekauthorization of the Commission prior to the introduction ofsuch offerings. The purpose of this policy is to provide assur-ance to students and other interested parties that to the great-est extent possible these new institutional developments willbe of satisfactory quality and will be established on a stroll,"institutional base. Experience has shown that it is difficult toinfluence the course of new developments without causing un-due hardship to students and the institution unless somejudgment regarding quality is made prior to the time of actualinitiation.

The institution is expected to complete a self-study tobe submitted in application for en on-site visit by North Cen-tral Association examiners. If the evaluation team concursthat the expansion plans are well-conceived and that thenecessary resources are available, the accreditation status ofthe institution is extended to include preliminary accreditationfor the projected offerings. Since preliminary accreditation isconceived of as a means of assuring acceptable quality in theinitial offering of any new educational program, it carries theconnotation of accreditation as applied generally, and no limitsor proscriptions are attached to the concept. After the pro-

10

gram has matured, that is, after graduates have been pro-duced, the Commission will revisit the institution for "fullaccreditation" to confirm the promise and potential of itsearlier approval.

Since its adoption in the early sixties, the program ofpreliminary accreditation has proved to be extremely effectivein fulfilling the purpose for which it was designed the deter-mination of institutional readiness for proposed changes priorto their introduction. This program has won the support ofnumerous professional societies as a means of ensuring qualitycontrol at the graduate level. It has enabled the Commissionto work cooperatively with a number of state coordinatingagencies to assist in the development of quality educationalprograms. The policy on preliminary accreditation in no waypermits the substitution of judgment of the Commission forthat of any legally authorized body. The two functions areseparate and distinct: the responsibility of the board of controlor other authorizing agencies is to define and approve pro-grams within the scope of the institution's mission; the Com-mission's concern is with the maintenance and improvem nytof acceptable educational quality.

Over the past several years 120 institutions, rangingfrom junior colleges moving to the bachelor's degree-grantinglevel through institutions proposing to initiate doctoral levelprograms, have had their accreditation extended to includepreliminary accreditation for some 250 new programs. Ap-proximately forty applications for preliminary and full ac-creditation are received by the Commission each year. Gen-erally, three-fourths of these applications are approved as aresult of their processing through the decision-making proce-dures of the Commission and Association.

In executing the policy on preliminary accreditation theCommission has made every effort to assure that the interests

ii

of specialism or individual program accreditation will notoverride the general and institution-wide concern which mustbe of paramount significance to a general institutional ac-crediting agency. At the same time it must be recognized thatinstitutions develop graduate programs in specific fields, whichnecessitates representation on the evaluation team of bothgeneral and specific competence.

Sepal- -Ate Accreditation of Campuses in_Multi-Campus Systcms_

In 1965, the Commission on Institutions of HigherEducation developed the concept of separate accreditation ofgeographically separate units of a multi-purpose institutionwhich met the following conditions:

1) the unit is under the general control of a parentinstitution or a central administration in a multi-campus institution;

) the unit has a core of full-time faculty, a separatestudent body at the location, and a resident admin-istration;

) the unit offers programs comprising at least twoyears of degree credit course work or complete pro-grams comprising preparation for entry intooccupations.

Off-campus or extension programs which are more limitedthan those defined above as separately accreditable are in-cluded in the evaluation of the parent institution.

The degree of control of the separate units by thecentral administration does not affect the designation of acampus as a separate unit for accrediting purposes. Suchdesignation merely facilitates the handling of the accreditingprocedure and in no way interferes with the right of an institu-tion to devise its own organizational structure or program.

12

Separat accreditation of geographically separatc unitswas developed in recognition of the need for more effectivequality control in all units of multi-campus institutions. Ade-quate attention to differential quality among the several geo-graphically separated units in such institutions proved to bedifficult under the procedures for evaluation of all the distinctunits as one institution. In fulfilling this policy the usualself-study procedures and evaluation processes prevail.

In the last five years thirty-nine campuses of memberinstitutions have been evaluated for separate accreditation.Thirty-eight of these campuses were granted accreditation andare separately listed under the parent institution in the Northcentral Association Quarterly's annual roster of members.Most were found to be of sufficient quality to merit accredita-tion in a separate status, while other units were more develop-mental in character and have been scheduled for early review.Approximately 12-15 evaluations of operationally separateunits have now been scheduled each year from the spring of1971 through 1975.

The policy of separate accreditation of geographicallyseparate units of an institution may also involve applicationsfor a pre-accreditation status as well as initial full accredita-tion. The policy has, therefore, facilitated work with develop-ing multi-campus institutions in which some units are readyto apply for an accredited status in the North Central Associa-tion before others.

Though some problems still remain in connection withseparate accreditation of geographically separate units of aninstitution, experience with this program has persuaded theCommission of its usefulness in making qualitative distinc-tions among the several units of an institution which operateson more than one campus or location.

13

Transfer of AccreditationThe policy of transfer of accreditation provides for

continuity in the accreditation of a member institution follow-ing a significant change in its status or control through per-mitting the Commission to transfer the accreditation of theformer institution to the new entity. The transfer in such casesis validated as soon as feasible through an on-site examina-tion. The policy not only allows the Commission to act on thetechnicality of transferring accreditation to a new legal entitybut, more importantly, to evaluate the effects of such a changein the operation of the on-going institution. These effects areoften very significant, especially when changes occur in insti-tutional purpose, structure, resources, and/or programs.

The policy has been most often applied in the junior-community college area, when accredited institutions formerlyoperated as part of unit or high school districts have becomeindependent units with separate district support. Twenty-fivejunior colleges and three senior institutions have been actedupon in the past four years under the transfer of accreditationpolicy.

Retrospect and ProspectThis brief review of the major policies and procedures

has attempted to portray the means through which the Com-mission assists institutions. Basic to each is the self-studyapproach, involvement of the various groups of the academiL,community, and an on-site evaluation by a team of examinerswho represent a variety of areas of competencies and exper-tise. These efforts illustrate the Commission's endeavor todevelop means for continual systematic study of institutionaleffectiveness.

Despite these efforts, long-standing but still unan-swered questions continue to challenge those engaged in ac-

14

crediting activities. Is it possible to rely less on the structur,.process variables which still dominate institutional evaluationand give more emphasis to the educational outcomes of theinstitution and its programs? In institutional evaluation itseems proper to proceed from an institution's statement ofpurpose, but under what circumstances, if any, should theaccrediting agency question the purposes themselves? Towhat extent should all educational programs include a generaleducation component and, if so, what can be said about itsnature? How can a complex institution, such as a universitywith all interrelated functions, be more effectively appraisedin the evaluative-accreditation process? How can the accredit-ing agency reduce unnecessary conformity and stimulate in-novation? Does the institution-wide approach to accreditingoffer adequate safeguards to those with special interests andthus reduce or avoid the need for proliferation of specializedaccrediting agencies and duplication of efforts? To what ex-tent and through which means can the Commission provideto the public more additional information about institutionsthan what appears in the listing of accredited institutions?

One matter of greai; significance has marked the evolu-tion of the accrediting process, not only as carried out by thisCommission but by others as well. This is the shift from theevaluation of an institution within a framework of fixed stand-ards, using measurable, quantifiable characteristics, to ananalysis of an institution's effectiveness in accomplishing itsavowed purposes within a framework of general guidelines. 4In this approach the emphasis is upon a group of experienced,

4 For a review of the shift of emphasis see Zook, Geo_ F. & Haggerty, M. E.The Evaluation of Higher Institutions, Vol. I-VI, Principles of AccreditingHigher Institutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936; NorthCentral Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, Commission on Col-leges and Universities, Revised Manual of Accrediting, 1941; Guide for theEvaluation of Institutions of Higher Educat..a, Rev. 1965; Guidelines forInstitutions Offering Advanced Degree Programs, 1970; Tentative Guidelinesfor the Evaluation of Occupational Education, 1969.

15

knowledgeable individuals applying their 'expertise and rea-soned intelligence for accreditation purposes. Has this pro-cedure resulted in too much reliance on subjective factors?To what extent are undesirable variations permitted by thisapproach both within a particular region and on a nationalbasis?

These are but a few of the questions that surround theaccreditation effort, particularly among the regional accredit-ing Commissions on Institutions of Higher Education.

To assist in resolving some of these problems and topermit the application of greater resources to the resolutionof certain of these problems, the Commission on Institutionsof Higher Education has joined with the other representativeCommissions on Higher Education to form the Federation ofRegional Accrediting Commissions of Higher Education( FRACHE). The purpose of this organization is to promotethe development of common policies and produres, to ex-change information, and to study the effectiveness of insti-tutional accrediting as carried out by the constituent commis-sions.

D/iring the past year a study was commissioned by theFederation and conducted to analyze the policies and proce-dures of each of the regional commissions, to identify weak-nesses and areas where differences are causing problems,and to make recommendations for changes designed tostrengthen institutional accreditation.5 This report has beencompleted and a summary of its findings and recommenda-tions is available from the Office of the Federation of RegionalAccrediting Commissions on Higher Education, 5454 SouthShore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60615. This document and its

Puffer, Claude E., Director; Steffens, H. Walter, Associcto Director;Lombardi, John; Pfnister, Allan 0. Regional Accreditation of Institutions ofHigher Education. Vol_ I and II, JWy, 1970.

16

recommendations are expected to have profound implicationsfor the accrediting movement.

The Commission on Institutions of Higher Educationas a part of the North Central Association of Colleges andSecondary Schools is aware of the fundamental and importantrole that voluntary accreditation has played in the history ofthe development of higher educational institutions. The con-tinuing favorable response of institutions and individualsindicates the basic strength of voluntary accreditation. How-ever, the Commission itself must be continually responsiveto changing needs as it seeks to promote vitality and self-renewal in institutions. Developments such as a strengthenedFederation will help to point the way. Increased use of re-search techniques to aid in the solution of the problems facingaccrediting is a necessity. Only through fulfilling its maxi-mum potential for service to the institutions in its member-ship and institutions aspiring to membership will the commit-ment to, involvement in, and respect of the higher educationcommunity for the work of the Commission be maintained.

As one looks ahead, it is clear that there will be signifi-cant changes in the processes, methodology, structure, and,perhaps, even the purposes of accrediting. It is hoped that theleadership for accrediting will demonstrate the initiative,imagination, and flexibility which are essential if accreditingas a mechanism for quality control and improvement is to beequal to its task.

17

PROCEDURES OF THE COMMISSIONON INSTITUTIONS OFHIGHER EDUCATION

Procedures of the Commission on Institutions of HigherEducation Adopted March 26, 1969

1. The member institutions of higher education of theAssociation shall be grouped according to the following geo-graphic districts:

District A Michigan, Ohio, West VirginiaDistrict B Illinois, Indiana, WisconsinDistrict C Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North

Dakota, South DakotaDistrict D Arkansas, Kansas, Missou

OklahomaDistrict E Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico,

Wyoming2. The member ins itutions of higher education of the

Association shall be classified by type. The basis for thisclassificatior shall be the highest degree offered by an institu-tion, if any.

3. The members of the Commission on Institutions ofHigher Education shall be selected from the member institu-tions by district and by type of institution. The doctor'sdegree-granting institutions in each of the five districts shallbe entitled to two Commissioners for each ten institutions ormajor fraction thereof but with a maximum of four Commis-sioners. The master's and specialist's degree-granting institu-tions, the bachelor's degree-granting institutions, the associ-ate degree-granting institutions, and the non-degree-grantinginstitutions in each of the five districts shall be entitled to one

18

Commissioner for each ten institutions or major fraction there-of but with a maximum of four Commissioners. The Commis-sioners shall serve for four-year terms, one-fourth of the termsexpiring each year, and shall be ineligible for reelection untilone year has elapsed. At any one time there shall be no morethan one Commissioner from any one institution.

The Commissioners in each district shall suggest per-sons annually to replace those whose terms have expired inaccordance with the formula covering the distribution of Com-missioners by type of institution within the district. Thesuggestions from the districts shall be submitted to theNominating Committee for the Commission appointed annual-ly by the Executive Board. The Nominating Committee forthe Commission shall present its nominations to the Commis-sion at the time of the Annual Meeting of the Association.Election of the Commissioners shall be by the representativesof the member institutions at the Annual Meeting on recom-mendation of the Commission.

4. The Commission on Secondary Schools shall desig-nate three members of the Commission on Secondary Schoolsto serve on the Commission on Institutions of Higher Educa-tion. Secondary school members of the .Commission shallserve for four-year terms or until expiration of their terms onthe Commission on Secondary Schools, whichever is shorter.

5. Determination of institutional status, accredited orpreaccredited, shall be made on the basis of on-site examina-tions conducted by teams appointed by the staff of the Com-mission with the authorization of the Executive Board. Thereports of examining teams and other relevant materials shallbe considered by reviewing committees composed of Commis-sioners supplemented by experienced evaluators or, in somecases, directly by the Executive Board of the Commission.The reviewing committees shall be set up by the staff of the

19

Commission with the authorization of the Executive Board ofthe Commission. The actions of the reviewing committeesrelative_,_to the accredited status of institutions or a pre-accredited status shall be in the form of recommendations toate- Executive Board.

A member institution of higher education shall not beremoved from the list of accredited institutions without an on-site examination unless it ( 1 ) voluntarily withdraws its mem-bership or (2) fails to comply with requirements of the Com-mission, such as the payment of dues and fees or the submis-sion of reports. Institutions holding an established preac-credited status shall automatically lose that status uponreaching the end of the term for the status unless adtion istaken to change its status or grant an extension of its cur-rent status.

Each Commissioner shall be assigned t one of thereviewing committees.

The normal expectation is that the expenses of theCommissioners for attendance at the meetings of the Com-mission will be paid by their institutions.

6. The Executive Board of the Commission on Institu-tions of Higher Education shall be composed of twei ve persons,nine of whom shall be elected by the Commission and threeby the Executive Board. All members shall serve for staggeredterms of five years without opportunity for reelection untilone year has elapsed. The members of the Executive Boardshall be selected with due regard for geographic distributionand institutional type but without specification as to the num-ber from each geographic district or type of institution. Allmembers of the Executive Board shall be members of theCommission. If the Commission term of one of the nine Boardmembers elected by the Commission expires before the e_-piration of his term on the Board he shall continue on the

20

Commission as an added member until the expiration of histerm on the Board.

It shall be the responsibility of the Executive Board(a) To consider all reports on the basis of which actions

affecting the accredited status of institutions or aformally established preaccredited status may betaken. At the Spring Meeting of the Associationthe Executive Board shall make its recommenda-tions for action on such matters to the Commis-sion which in turn shall make its recommendationsto the Association or to the Board of Directorsacting for the Association. At other meetings, therecommendations of the Executive Board, actingfor the Commission, shall be made directly to theBoard of Directors acting for the Association.

(b ) To appoint and consider the reports of ad hoc com-mittees before such reports are presented to theCommission for action.

(c) To initiate possible policy changes and considermatters of policy brought to its attention throughchannels other than ad hoc committees before suchmatters are presented to the Commission.

( d ) To initiate and conduct inquiries as needed aboutmember institutions or institutions in a formallyestablished pre-accredited status.

(e) To carry on all business of the Commission betweenmeetings of the Commission.

The Executive Secretary of the Commission, elected bythe Commission, shall be ex officio Secretary of the ExecutiveBoard. He shall serve for a three-year term and be eligible forreelection. He shall be ex officio a member of the ExecutiveBoard and the Commission.

21

7. Each member insUtution of higher education, in-cluding units of an institution accredited as operationallyseparate, shall designate one person as the official North Cen-tral Association representative, and he shall represent hisinstitution at the Annual Meetings of the Association. It isexpected that the representative will be the chief administra-tive officer of the institution or someone designated by him.

Revised March 1970

22

27

Published March 1971Chicago, Illinois