|
Review of Accreditation Criteria |
The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities conducts a systematic program of review of its accreditation criteria to ensure that they are relevant to the educational needs of students and adequate to evaluate the quality of the education provided by the institutions it accredits and preaccredits. In determining the specific procedures it follows in evaluating its accreditation criteria, the Commission ensures that its program of review includes these elements:
|
Additionally, the institution may choose to provide a written response to the content and findings of the final evaluation report. The Commission considers the written response of the institution to the final evaluation report during its formal deliberations of the institution at its regularly scheduled summer or winter meeting. Prior to the Commission meeting the institution’s chief executive officer is notified in writing of this option. |
| (1) |
The Commission conducts a regular review of its accreditation criteria every five years. The schedule for review is as follows: |
| |
|
Year One
|
| |
|
Year Two
|
| |
|
Year Three
|
| |
|
Year Four
|
| |
|
Year Five
|
| |
This review cycle repeats every five (5) years thereafter. |
| (2)
|
The Commission takes the following steps in conducting a regular review of its accreditation criteria:
|
| |
(a) |
The Commission convenes one or more accreditation review committees for the accreditation criteria being reviewed. Each accreditation review committee is chaired by a Commissioner. Membership on an accreditation review committee consists of representatives of two-year and four-year member institutions from the public and private sectors who possess experience and expertise in the area of the accreditation criteria under review. At least one member of the accreditation review committee represents regionally accredited institutions from outside the Northwest region. |
| |
(b) |
Notification of the review process; a copy of the accreditation standard(s) under review; request for comment regarding the adequacy, effectiveness, and clarity of the standard(s); and request for suggestions for changes to the standard(s) under review are sent to: 1) the chief executive officer, accreditation liaison officer, head of the faculty organization, head of the student organization, and chair of the governing board of each accredited institution; 2) the chief executive officer, accreditation liaison officer, head of the faculty organization, head of the student organization, and chair of the governing board of each candidate institution; 3) head of the appropriate state higher education system authorities; and 4) head of appropriate state agencies that oversee higher education. Public notice of the review and request for comment will be posted to the Commission’s website.
|
| |
(c) |
The accreditation review committee reviews the comments received from the constituencies identified in section (2)(b). The committee also reviews: 1) the academic literature to determine current educational trends; 2) standards for accreditation from other recognized accrediting agencies; 3) information related to the adequacy, effectiveness, and clarity of standards from biannual surveys of institutions that completed comprehensive evaluations; 4) information related to the adequacy, effectiveness, and clarity of standards from biannual surveys of first-time evaluators. |
| |
(d) |
The accreditation review committee prepares an analysis of findings and recommendation, with rationale, regarding suggested changes, if any, to the Commission’s accreditation criteria. The accreditation review committee’s findings and recommendation, with rationale, are forwarded to the Commission for consideration at its next regularly scheduled meeting. |
| Return to Top of Page |
| (3) |
If the Commission determines that changes to its accreditation are not required, a notice is sent to the constituencies identified in section (2)(b) and a public notice of this determination is posted on the Commission’s website. If the Commission determines that a change to its standards for accreditation is needed, it acts within 12 months of the date of that determination to initiate action to revise the accreditation criteria and completes the revision to the accreditation criteria within 24 months from the date the determination was made. The Commission takes the following steps in revising its accreditation criteria: |
| |
(a) |
The Commission charges the accreditation review committee identified in section (2)(a) above with drafting a proposed revision to the accreditation criteria; |
| |
(b) |
Based upon the charge from the Commission and input received from constituencies identified in section (2)(b), the accreditation review committee prepares a draft of proposed changes and recommendation for consideration by the Commission. |
| |
(c) |
Following a review of the draft of the proposed revision to the accreditation criteria and recommendation from the accreditation review committee, the Commission may reject the proposed changes and return the matter to the accreditation review committee for further work. If the Commission accepts the proposed changes, including modifications made by the Commission, it forwards the proposed changes for comment. A notice of proposed change(s) and request for comment is distributed to: 1) the chief executive officer, accreditation liaison officer, head of the faculty organization, head of the student organization, and chair of the governing board of each accredited institution; 2) the chief executive officer, accreditation liaison officer, head of the faculty organization, head of the student organization, and chair of the governing board of each candidate institution; 3) head of the appropriate state higher education system authorities; and 4) head of the appropriate state agencies that oversee higher education. Public notice of the proposed change(s) and request for comment is posted to the Commission’s website. |
| |
(d) |
The Commission allows a minimum of 30 days for receipt of comments from its constituencies regarding proposed changes to the accreditation criteria. |
| |
(e) |
The Commission reviews comments received from its constituencies at its next regularly scheduled meeting. The Commission may defer further consideration of the proposed change(s) pending further review by the accreditation review committee. It may also modify the proposed change(s), as appropriate, based on comments from its constituencies and distribute the proposed changes to the membership for a vote of approval. |
| |
(f) |
Member institutions have thirty (30) days to complete and return the ballot. The votes are tabulated and the Commission announces the results of the vote at the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting. If approved by the membership, a copy of the revised accreditation criteria is distributed to the constituencies identified in section (2)(b) and posted on the Commission’s website. |
| |
|
|
