k

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 086 072 HE 004 974

TITLE Annual Report 1972-73: Commission on Institutions ofHigher Education.

INSTITUTION North Central Association of Colleges and SecondarySchools, Chicago,

PUB DATE Dec 73NOTE 40p.

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS *Academic Standards; *Accreditation (Institutions);

Annual Reports; *Collective Bargaining; *HigherEducation; *Institutional Role

ABSTRACTThis report summarizes the Commission on Institutions

of Higher Education activities in carrying out its function ofinstitutional accreditation in the North Central region over a 2-yearperiod. Commission activities discussed include accreditingactivities, self-study institutes and workshops, consultant-evaluatorconferences, and consultant-evaluator associates program. Issues ofinterest include collective bargaining, the accreditation ofinstitutions offering occupational education programs, and evaluationof foreign study programs. Policies and procedures of primary concernto the commission include restructuring of the North CentralAssociation and procedures of the commission. (MJM)

I

,`NORTH CENTRAL; ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS

V

A A

#

COMMISSION ON INSTITUTIONSOF HIGHER EDUCATION

#1

.*

U.S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION &WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCE() EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANI. AI ION ORIGINAT ING IT POINTS OF VIEW OP OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFED'ICAliON POSITION OR POLICY

.arrzona arkansas coloiado illinois .indiana 1..4iowa kansas michigan

minnesota missouri, nebM ska new mexico thdakota duo'oklahonfa' south dakota west virginia wiscons wyontg

o

EXECUTIVE BOARD

(Members of the Executive Board are automatically members of the Commission)

Chairman: ROBERT L. CLomus, University Professor, University of Wisconsin, 4123Helen C. White Hall 600 North Park Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 (1974)

Vice Chairman: PAUL H. SILVERMAN, Vice President for Research, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106 (1976)

LOUISE ALLEN, Chairman, Communications Division, Parkland College, Champaign,Illinois 61820 (1977)

WADE ELLIS, Associate Dean, Graduate School, and Professor of Mathematics, Uni-versity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 (1975)

EDWARD B. ESPENSIIADE, JR.. Chairman, Department of Geography, NorthwesternUniversity, Evanston, Illinois 60201 (1977)

SISTER ANN IDA GANNON, B.V.M., President, Mur4elein College, 6363 Sheridan Road,Chicago, Illinois 60660 (1974)

MORRIS KEETON, Provost, Antioch College, Suite 200, Wilde Lake Village Green,Columbia, Maryland 21044 (1978)

WILLIAM E. NEPTUNE, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Oklahoma Baptist Univer-sity, Shawnee, Oklahoma 74801 (1976)

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

ROBERT F. RAY, Demi, Division of Extension and University Services, C108 East Hall,University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242 (1976)

FRED C. SUTTON, Dean, Technical-Occupational Education, Cuyahoga CommunityCollege-Metropolitan Campus, 2970 Community College Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio44115 (1974)

RICHARD WHITMORE, President, Kellogg Community College, Battle Creek, Michigan49017 (1977)

STAFF OF THE COMMISSION

Director of the Commission: NORMAN BURNS, 5454 South Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois60615

Executive Director: JOSEPH J. SEMROW, 5454 South Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois60615

Associate Executive Director: Pi-TRICIA A. THRASH, 5454 South Shore Drive, Chicago,Illinois 60615

Assistant Executive Director: H. VICTOR BALDI, 5454 South Shore Drive, Chicago,Illinois 60615

Assistant Executive Director: JOSEPH A. BARNEY, 5454 South Shore Drive, Chicago,Illinois 60615

Assistant Executive Director: RANDALL L. THOMPSON, 5454 South Shore Drive, Chi-cago, Illinois 60615

Administrative Assistant: CATHERINE MCQUARRIE, 5454 South Shore Drive, Chicago,Illinois 6061b

COMMISSIONERS

Class of 1974

CHARLES M. BARNES, President. Dodge City Community College. Dodge City, Kansas(i7801

WALTER C. DANIEL, Vice Chancellor, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65201ROLAND DILLE, President, Moorhead State College, Moorhead, Minnesota 56560RALPH S. RIELSTAD, 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 55455DONALD D. O'Dowa, President. Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan 48063ALEXANDER I. POPOV, Professor, Department of Chemistry, Michigan State University,

East Lansing, Michigan 48823ROY B. SHILLING, JR., 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 66801Jos Ern F. WALL, Dean of the College, Grinnell College, Grinnell, Iowa 50112RALPH WERNER, President, Bismarck Junior College, Bismarck, North Dakota 58501'

Class of 1975

PETER H. ARMACOST, President, Ottawa University, Ottawa, Kansas 66067alms J. BARKER, Gellhorn University Professor of Public Affairs and Political Sci-

ence, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130JAMES T. BURTCHAELL, C.S.C., Provost, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, In-

diana 46556JAMES Co:'nroR, Provost and Academic Vice President and Professor of History,

Western Illinois University, Macomb, Illinois 61455DORIS B. CROZIER, Dean of Lindenwood College for Women, St. Charles, Missouri

63301REUBEN GUTIERREZ, Dean of Students, Trinidad State Junior College, Trinidad, Colo-

rado 81082C. WILLIAM HEYWOOD, Professor of History, Cornell College, Mt. Vernon, Iowa 52314SISTER ALBERTA HUBER, President, College of St. Catherine, St. Paul, Minnesota 55116LEWIS JACKSON, Assistant to the President, Central State University, Wilberforce,

Ohio 45384JOHN J. KAMERICK, President, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa 50613CHARLES W. MEISTER, President, Eastern New Mexico University, Porta les, New

Mexico 88130MARIE R. PRAHL, Dean of Student Personnel, Charles Stewart Mott Community Col-

lege, Flint, Michigan 48503FRANK SAMUELS, Associate Dean, Adult Basic Education, Milwaukee Area Technical

College, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203THADDEUS SEYMOUR, President, Wabash College, CraWfordsville, Indiana 47933KEITH W. STOEHR, District Director, Gateway Vocational, Technical and Adult Edu-

cation District, 3520 30th Avenue, Kenosha, Wisconsin 53140EDWIN E. VINEYARD, President, Northern Oklahoma College, Tonkawa, Oklahoma

74653

Class of 1976SYLVIA E. BOWMAN, Chancellor of Regional Campus Administration, Indiana Univer-

sity, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202WENDELL H. BRAGONIER, Dean of the Graduate School, Colorado State University,

Fort Collins, Colorado 80521NAPOLEON BRYANT, Professor of Education. Xavier University, Cincinnati. Ohio 45207ROBERT V. CRAMER. President. Carroll College. Waukesha, Wisconsin 53186SISTER MARGARET DUNN. Professor of English. Barat College. Lake Forest, Illinois

60045WILLIAM A. HixsoN, Head, Department of Electrical Engineering, South Dakota

School of Mines and Technology. Rapid City. South Dakota 57701KARL J. JACOBS, President. Rock Valley College. Rockford, Illinois 61111W. THOMAS JANZOW, President, Concordia Teachers College. Seward, Nebraska 68434JAMES R. McCoy, Dean, Administrative Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus,

Ohio 43210PHYLLIS MCWILLIAMS, Chairman,Social Science Department. Ottumwa Heights Col-

lege, Ottumwa, Iowa 52501JAMES BANE. Vice President for Academic A6 'rs. University of Wyoming, Laramie,

Wyoming 82070WILLIAM F. SCHALLERT, Chairman. Engineering Division. Florissant Valley Com-

munity College, Ferguson, Missouri 63135ROBERT H. STAUFFER, President, Parkersburg Community Colioge, Parkersburg, West

Virginia 26101BJARNE R. ULLSVIK, Chancellor, University of toville Platteville, Wis-

consin 53818JACOB VINOCUR, Vice President for Academic Affairs, itiorthe,.. Michigan University,

Marquette, Michigan 49855

Class of 1977RICHARD BARKSDALE. Professor of English. University of Illinois, Urb.itia, Illinois 61801ROBERT A. BARNES, Director, Ohio State University-Newark, Newark, Ohio 43055NAOMI B. BROWN, Dean of Women, Miami University. Oxford, Ohio 450`56JAMES L. CHAPMAN. President, West Liberty State College. West Liberty, West Vir-

ginia 26074JUNE DOLLAIIAN, Professor of Psychology and English. Vincennes University, Vin-

cennes, Indiana 47591JOHN W. EASLEY, President, Phillips County Community College, P.O. Box 785,

Helena. Arkansas 72342LOUISE GILES, Dean of Learning Resources, Macomb County Community College-

South Campus, 14500 Twelve Mile Road, Warren, Michigan 48093HARRY F. HonoE, Dean, College of Education. Arkansas State University. State Uni-

versity, Arkansas 72467ALBERT G. HUEGLL President, Valparaiso University. Valparaiso, Indiana 46383JINNETT B. KIRK, Dean of Students, Mesa Community College, Mesa, Arizona 85202HELEN KRIEGSMAN, Chairman, Department of Mathematics, Kansas State College of

Pittsburg, Pittsburg, Kansas 66762EDWARD W. WEIDNER, Chancellor, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Green Bay,

Wisconsin 54302

SECONDARY SCHOOL MEMBERSW. EARL HARMON, Principal, West High School, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53222 (1974)ALVIN MORRIS, Superintendent, Wichita Public Schools, 428 South Broadway, Wichita,

Kansas 56202 (19'75)DONALD REBER. Saperintendent, Lyons Township High School, 100 South Brainard,

LaGrange, Illinois 60525 (1977)

FOREWORD

The Annual Report 1972-1973 is the third an-nual report published by the Commission on Institu-tions of Higher Education. The first report, for 1970,in addition to presenting an account of the majoractivities for the year, traces the development of thepolicies and procedures that reflect the Commission'sattempt to respond effectively to the demand formaintenance of quality in higher education. Includedin the 1971 report are policy statements and positionpapers adopted by the Executive Board of the Com-mission that reflect their concern with the natureof the academic enterprise and the relationship ofaccreditation to new developments in higher educa-tion.

The current report summarizes the Commis-sion's activities in carrying out its function of insti-tutional accreditation in the North Central regionover a two-year period. At the end of 1973, this 19-state area includes 677 accredited institutions ofhigher education and 159 institutions listed as can-didates for accreditation. This compares with 605accredited institutions and 149 institutions holding apreaccredited status at the close of 1971. Officiallistings of accredited institutions and candidates foraccreditation appear in the summer issue of the NorthCentral Association Quarterly.

In a continuing effort to convey to institutionsand interested publics the Commission's concern withsignificant forces and movements influencing the roleof postsecondary education in our time, this :eportpresents a review of changes that have evolved in in-stitutional accrediting in response to a changing sys-tem of higher education over the past seven:1 decades.It also includes the policy statements and positionpapers that have evolved most recently as the Com-mission seeks to meet its ongoing commitment andresponsibility to adapt to the challenges of change.

FOREWORD(continued)

This publication of a biennial report does notrepresent a change in practice but is rather a resultof particular circumstances that prevented prepara-tion of separate reports for 1972 and 1973. A returnto annual reporting in 1974 is anticipated.

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

Robert ClodiusChairman

Norman BurnsDirector of the Commission

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

INSTITUTIONAL ACCREDITING: ITS RESPONSETO AN EVOLVING SYSTEM OF HIGHEREDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES 3

COMMISSION ACTIVITIES 13

Accrediting Activities 14

Self-Study In3titutes and Workshops 14

Consultant- Evaluator Conferences 16

Consultant-Evaluator Associates Program 16

ISSUES OF INTEREST 17

Collective Bargaining 17

The Accreditation of Institutions Offering OccupationalEducatiou Programs: A Status Report 19

Evaluation of Foreign Study Programs 22

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 27

Restructuring of the North Central Association 27

Procedures of the Commission on Institutions ofHigher Education 28

INTRODUCTION

The Commission on Institutions of Higher Educationis one of three constituent Commissions of the North CentralAssociation of Colleges and Secondary Schools, a voluntaryaccrediting agency with a history dating to 1895. The othermajor components of the Association are the Commission onSecondary Schools and the Commission on Research andService.

The Commission on Institutions of Higher Educationis responsible for the establishment of criteria for the evalua-tion of institutions of higher education, for aiding interestedinstitutions in attaining membership in the Association, forassisting member institutions in the improvement and the ex-tension of their programs, for the conduct of workshops forconsultants and evaluators, and for the study of matters ofcommon concern to postsecondary institutions.

Today, the activities of the Commission on Institutionsof Higher Education are coordinated with those of similar com-missions of the other five regional accrediting agencies' throughthe Federation of Regional Accrediting Commissions of HigherEducation (FRACHE).

In the report that follows, the specific role and activi-ties of the Commission and the Federation are considered ingreater detail. To help place them within the total context ofiiistitutional accreditation, however, the initial statement pre-sents an overview of accreditation as it has evolved in responseto change, as it exists today, and as it serves as a referencepoint for the future.

1 New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Middle States Associa-tion of Colleges and Secondary Schools, 5- Ahern Association of Collegesand Schools, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, and NorthwestAssociation of Secondary and Higher Schools.

1

INSTITUTIONAL ACCREDITING: ITS RESPONSETO AN EVOLVING SYSTEM OF HIGHEREDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES

The Meaning of General Accrediting

Though accredited status is widely recognized as somesort of desirable badge of approval for institutions to have,there is relatively little understanding of what institutionalaccrediting is really about. Perhaps it can best be describedas an activity carried on by educational institutions them-selves, voluntarily joined together in an organization thathas for its purpose the identification, preservation, and ad-vancement of quality in education. Membership in the or-ganization is open only to institutions accredited by theorganization; that is, those that meet its standards. The stan-dards to be employed and the policies and procedures of theorganization are determined by legislative groups composedof representatives of the member institutions.

A prestige factor has come to be attached to institu-tional accrediting, generally giving the accredited institutiona position of higher status than the unaccredited institution.Accredited status attracts students, faculty, and financial sup-port and smooths the paths of students transferring to otherinstitutions as well as graduates seeking emplbyment. Formembership in some educational associations, it is a pre-requisite. The endorsement of the accrediting agency facilitatesthe granting of funds by the federal government and fre-quently by other agencies as well.

The Origin of Accrediting

The accrediting movement began in the early days ofthe United States Bureau of Education, established in 1867.

3

As one of its tasks in fulfilling the assignment of summarizingthe educational activities of the country, the Bureau was topublish a list of collegiate institutions. But, first, it was neces-sary to define a collegiate institution, which the Bureau didin this way: "A collegiate institution is one authorized to givedegrees and which reports college students in attendance." TheBureau published its first listing of 369 institutions meetingthis definition in 1870. This effort to define a college wouldappear to represent the beginnings of standajdization and thegerm of the accrediting movement.

Other agencies became concerned with the definitionof a college for their own specific purposes. For example, theCarnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, inestablishing a system of retirement allowances for facultymembers in institutions of higher education, adopted a defini-tion that included these provisions: no less than $200,000of productive endowment, at least six chairs of instruction, andrequirements of four years of college preparation for admis-sion and 120 semester hours for graduation.

Defining the characteristics of a college was prerequisiteto devising some means for distinguishing between those col-leges that were of satisfactory quality and those that werenot. There was need for this, for, although the responsibilityfor the control of education was reserved for the states, moststates assumed little or no regulatory authority. Perhaps be-cause in our early history higher education was left mainly toprivate, and especially church, initiative, most of the stateswere very lenient in granting charters to higher institutions,giving them wide latitude in the conduct of their work. Legalauthority to grant degrees conferred by the state offered little,if any, assurance that the institution was a good institution oreven that it was reputable. There was great variation amongeducational institutions in quality and in structure.

4

In an effort to bring some order out of the disorder,which existed in much the same way at the secondary schoollevel, regionally organized associations of schools and collegesbegan to emerge toward the turn of the century. What isnow the New England Association of Schools and Collegeswas first on the scene, followed shortly by the Middle StatesAssociation of Colleges and Secondary Schools, the NorthCentral Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, andthe Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The North-west Association of Secondary and Higher Schools and theWestern Association of Schools and Colleges were formed later.

The standards to which institutions were expected toconform as a condition for membership in the accrediting com-missions were stated largely in quantitative terms, spelling outthe specifics relating to characteristics of the institutional struc-turethe faculty, the curriculum, the library, the physicalplant, and finance.

Criticism of Standarization

In its time, the use of standards contributed measur-ably to the ordering of higher education and hence to itsgeneral improvement. In the early years of this century, how-ever, the situation began to change rapidly. Collegiate educa-tion was expanding at an accelerated pace. In response togrowing demands for more and new types of educational pro-grams, new institutions were appearing on the scene and ex-isting institutions were extending the scope of their activities.As higher education attempted to meet the new and expand-ing needs, the charge was made with increasing frequency,even by those who recognized the value of accrediting, thatthe inflexible application of standards to institutions wasstifling legitimate experimentation.

5

The accrediting movement responded by adopting a newapproach to accrediting. The concept of standardization wasreplaced by the principle of institutional individuality, whichheld that institutions properly differed in definition of pur-pose and in the means employed in attaining the desired ends.Further, an institution was no longer to be denied accredita-tion because of failure to meet one or more of these standards;rather, it was to be judged in terms of the total pattern itpresentedelements of strength to be weighed against ele-ments of weakness. Under the new approach, quantitative datacontinued to be used as a partial basis for accrediting decisions,but they were used as norms, as 'guidelines, rather than asminimum standards. It was recognized that there is no goodsubstitute for informed professional judgment as a basis foraccrediting decisions. Many of the important characteristicsof a good educational operation simply do not lend themselvesto quantification.

Accrediting Continues to Change

Changes in accreditation, as in other institutions serv-ing society, have continued at an accelerating rate in responseto rapidly changing demands. There has been tremendous ex-pansion in the higher education enterprise, particularly sincethe close of World War II. The junior-community collegemovement has grown at a bewilderingly rapid rate. Existinginstitutions, particularly state institutions, have been openingnew off-campus centers and expanding established centers.There has been a growing emphasis on semiprofessional-tech-nical-vocational educational programs to meet the require-ments of our expanding technology. Many state colleges havebeen moving to the university level with professional andgraduate programs. The expansion of facilities and programshas been augmented, of course, by the provision of federalfunds in substantial amounts.

If expansion takes place at the expense of quality, theindividual and society are poorly served, and maintenance ofquality is the concern of the accrediting agency. To meet thegrowing responsibility brought by change, institutional ac-crediting agencies have found it necessary to broaden the rangeof their concerns.

For example, the comprehensive community college withbroadly ranging offerings in liberal arts, professional, semi-professional, and vocational-technical programs, some leadingto degrees and some not, presents certain problems of evalua-tion that are not faced in evaluating the more traditionalinstitutions of higher education.

Multiple campus developments cannot be evaluated inquite the same way as an institution existing entirely at asingle location. To deal with this particular kind of problem,a 'policy has been developed that permits off-campus unitsof an institution to be accredited separately under certainconditions.

Some particular problems are presented by the so-calleddeveloping universities, which are extending their offerings toinclude professional and graduate schools. Such developinginstitutions are frequently under pressure of various sorts,internal and external, to move somewhat faster than wisdommight dictate. It is the responsibility of the accrediting asso-ciation to provide a countervailing force that will check un-wise expansion and thus permit the institution to build realquality into its expanded programs.

Now, in the light of new developments in higher edu-cation, the accrediting association also faces further modifica-tion in means and methods of evaluation. Until very recently,higher education's response to emerging social needs consistedlargely of modification and elaboration of more or less tradi-tional institutional structuresa physical plant and facilities

7

designed solely for educational purposes, a resident facultypossessing the usual academic credentials, an organized cur-riculum and instructional program in which "credits" for resi-dence and class attendance on an organized basis were earned.Now we are witnessing developments that virtually abandonthe traditional institutional forms. A new and broader basefor education is emerging. The distinction between formal edu-cation, for which "credit" is given, and informal education,which carries no external reward, is breaking down. Througha variety of means students are earning credit for informal,noiistructured, and frequently self-guided educational experi-

/

ences. "External" degrees are being _onferred in recognitionof competence demonstrated by examination. Educational in-stitutions collaborate with each other and with noneducationalagencies to provide a wide range of significant experiencesleading to degrees.

So, once again, educational change is demanding cor-responding change in accrediting procedures and methods. Nolonger able to rely heavily on its traditional measuring sticksrelating to structure and form, the accrediting agency mustdevelop new methods of measuring the quality of learningexperiences available outside of the traditional institutionalarrangements of faculty, administration, library, and physicalfacilities. To a greater extent than in the past, the new ap-proach must rely on direct evaluation of educational outcomesand on evaluation of learning experiences, resources, and gov-ernance in terms of desired outcomes. Tentative plans for thenew approach to institutional evaluation are set forth in thestatement, "The Need for New Techniques for Evaluation."2

=The statement was published in the Annual Report 1971 of the Commissionon Institutions of Higher Education. Copies are also available from the Com-mission office.

8

Cooperation Among the Institutional Accrediting Commissions

One of the most significant developments in the accredit-ing movement is the growing cooperation among the regionalaccrediting commissions. The need for cooperation was firstrecognized formally in 1949 when the National Committee ofRegional Accrediting Agencies was organized. Through theNational Committee, representatives of the six regional com-missions on higher education had opportunities to discuss ac-crediting policies and practices periodically with a view topromoting greater efficiency, or at least greater c nsistency,among the regions.

For many years, the National Committee served also asa useful forum for the discussion of other matters of commonconcern. But it was not sufficient to meet present-day require-ments for general, institutional accrediting. The fact is thatthe concept of regionalism is not as significant today as it oncewas. There is a general trend in the ,conduct of human affairstoward centralization of power and authority, and educationis no exception. Agencies of the federal government are spend-ing large sums in support of educational programs and research,and in support of students. Philanthropic foundations operat-ing at the national and international levels are having a tre-mendous impact on education. As technology advances andspecialization grows, the interdependence of the various seg-ments of society increases. Increased speed and ease of com-munication and transportation tend to break down sectionaland regional lines.

Correspondingly, our concerns as a people must increas-ingly be viewed nationally and internationally. Fewer and fewerconcerns will be seen as problems to be dealt with in smallgeographic units.

In these times, the accrediting agency is called upon toextend the range of its activities. In the early days of generalinstitutional accrediting, accredited status served mainly tofacilitate the transfer of credits. Accreditation today has come

9

to be a condition for participating in a great variety of activi-ties, not the least of which are the funding programs of thefederal government. As the major agency in our society for theevaluation of educational institutions, it is the accreditingagency whose assistance is sought when questions of institu-tional quality are raised. And, when a fund-granting agencyseeks assurance that an institution in which it is investing isof acceptable quality, it is from the accrediting agency thatsuch assurance is sought.

i Federation of Regional Accrediting Commissions ofHigher Education

Faced with these developments, the regional accreditingassociations have found it necessary to create a single locus ofresponsibility for general institutional accreditingto create avoice that can speak for the regional commissions at the na-tional level on matters of common concern. To this end, thecommissions on higher education of the six regional accreditingassociations organized the Federation of Regional AccreditingCommissions of Higher Education in 1964. A Council, repre-sentative of the constituent commissions, was created to serveas the policy and decision-making body. The Council has madeconsiderable progress in reaching agreement on policies andprocedures; however, there is still a long way to go.

Recognizing the need for an Executive Director to repre-sent it in the educational councils of the nation and at confer-ences with agencies of the federal government and other edu-cational and professional organizations that deal with mattersinvolving or related to accrediting, the Federation in 1967 estab-lished the office on a part-time basis.

In 1970, a study group under the sponsorship of theFederation Council made a comprehensive study of institu-tional accrediting. Their major recommendation was for agreatly strengthened Federation, and this recommendation hasbeen followed. The regional commissions on higher educationand the associations of which they are a part have adopted a

10

set of bylaws that strengthen the Federation by giving it theauthority to formulate a set of common principles, commonpolicies, and general procedures for the constituent accreditingcommissions and to review and coordinate the activities of thecommissions to assure consistency with these principles. Theregional commissions will continue to carry do the accreditingactivities but under policies determined by the Federationrather than by the individual commissions.

In September 1972, the Federation set up an office inWashington with a full-time Executive Director.

Toward Further Coordination in Accrediting

In 1949, the National Commission on Accrediting wascreated by the presidents of institutions of higher educationfor the purposes of checking the proliferation of specialized,programmatic accrediting agencies, working for the eliminationof accrediting practices detrimental to the interests of institu-tions, and improving in general the accrediting situation in thepublic interest.

The Federation of Regional Accrediting Commissionshas maintained close liaison with the National Commission onAccrediting. Recently, there have been conversations lookingtoward the possible formation of an overall structure for thefurther coordination of voluntary accrediting. Clearly, thecreation of such a structure is a logical step in the furtherdevelopment of voluntary accrediting, and a number of pro-fessional accrediting organizations have expressed strong in-terest in participating. The form that the organization mighttake cannot be predicted at this time, however.

The Public Interest in Accrediting

The history of voluntary institutional accrediting offersconvincing evidence that it has been an effective force inAmerican higher education for many years. In its early days,it brought a much needed measure of order to the field. It has

11

played an important part in fostering equality in higher edu-cation. It has assisted institutions in a variety of ways, not theleast of which is supporting their efforts to resist those forcesthat, to advance special interests, would divert the , institu-tions from their essential business of seeking and disseminatingtruth. It has contributed to the preservation of institutionalindividuality through the policy of evaluating in terms of thepurposes the institution espouses.

In protecting and advancing the interests of qualityhigher education, institutional accrediting has always servedand will continue to serve the public interest. Accrediting hasgrown in importance as higher education has come to touchthe lives of more people in more ways, and the public interestin accrediting has grown commensurately. Indeed, this growthin public interest has reached the point where it is highly de-sirable to have direct representation of the public on the policy-making bodies in accrediting. Accordingly, the operating corn-missions and the newly reorganized Federation are modifyingtheir arrangements for control in such a way as to include sub-stantial direct participation by representatives of the public involuntary accrediting.

A Look Ahead

One of the basic assumptions of our society is that thepublic interest is best served through the interplay of forceson the part of groups and of individuals operating in an at-mosphere of relative freedom to pursue their own ends withincertain limitations imposed by the public through laws andregulations. In this sense, all social institutions, including highexeducation and accrediting, must serve society and be modifiedas conditions change.

The history of voluntary accrediting strongly indicatesa flexibility and willingness to change as the situation in whichit operates changes. So long as this continues to be true, itseffectiveness as a force in the advancement of the public goodwill continue.

12

COMMISSION ACTIVITIES

The primary task of the Commission on Institutions ofHigher Education is to foster and maintain the quality of thehigher educational, postsecondary enterprise through the ac-creditation process. The Commission fully supports and sub-scribes to the purposes of accreditation set forth by theFederation of Regional Accrediting Commissions of HigherEducation as follows:

fostering excellence in postsecondary educationthrough the development of criteria and guidelinesfor assessing educational effectiveness;

encouraging institutional improvement of education-al endeavors through continuous self-study andevaluation;

assuring the educational community, the generalpublic, and other agencies or organizations that aninstitution has clearly defined and appropriate edu-cational objectives, has established conditions underwhich their achievement can reasonably be expected,appears in fact to be accomplishing them substan-tially, and is so organized, staffed, and supportedthat it can be expected to continue to do so;

providing counsel and assistance to established anddeveloping institutions;

protecting institutions against encroachments whichmight jeopardize their educational effectiveness oracademic freedom.

To carry out its task effectively, the Commission mustboth assume responsibility for informing the public adequatelywith regard to postsecondary institutions and ensure the im-plementation of a successful program of institutional evalua-tion that encompasses on-site visits, due-process procedures,and training and education in evaluation processes. It is to theperformance of these services that the major activities of theCommission are directed.

13

Accrediting Activities

In the fall of 1971 and spring of 1972, 191 institutionswere evaluated for review at the 1972 spring and summer meet-ings of the Commission. In fall 1972 and spring 1973, 167 in-stitutions were evaluated for review at the Commission's 1973meetings. The statuses applied for and the actions taken aresummarized in Table I.

Following the summer 1973 meeting, the Commission,in accordance with a policy adopted by the Federation ofRegional Accrediting Commissions of Higher Education, for-mally dropped the categories of Correspondent of the Com-mission and Recognized Candidate for Accreditation and in-stituted a single affiliate status, Candidate for Accreditation.All institutions formerly holding the statuses of Correspondentof the Commission and Recognized Candidate for Accredita-tion are listed as Candidates for Accreditation in the summer1973 issue of the North Central Association Quarterly.

Self-Study Institutes and Workshops

In February of 1972 and 1973, the Commission spon-sored annual self-study institutes in Chicago to which repre-sentatives of institutions scheduled for evaluation visits withinthe next several years were invited. The objectives of the insti-tutes were to provide information on self-study techniques andthe nature of on-site evaluation visits and to give institutionalrepresentatives and the Commission staff an opportunity toshare directly their ideas with regard to expectations for mem-bership and institutional concerns.

During the two-year period, similar one-day, drive-inworkshops were held in Denver, Colorado, Phoenix, Arizona,Columbus, Nebraska, and Tulsa and Oklahoma City,Oklahoma.

14

TA

BL

E I

.A

ccre

ditin

g A

ctio

ns o

f th

e 6o

mm

issi

on o

n In

stitu

tions

of

Hig

her

Edu

catio

n: 1

972-

1973

TY

PE O

F E

VA

LU

AT

ION

*

TO

TA

LPe

riod

icM

embe

r-sh

ipR

evie

wE

arly

Re-

eval

uatio

nC

orre

-sp

onde

nt

Rec

ogni

zed

Can

dida

tefo

r A

ccre

di-

tatio

n

Initi

alM

embe

r-sh

ip

Ope

ra-

tiona

llySe

para

te

Tra

nsfe

rof

Acc

redi

-ta

tion

Prel

imin

ary

and

Ext

ensi

onof

Pre

limin

ary

Acc

redi

tatio

n

1972

Inst

itutio

ns R

evie

wed

2435

2231

2813

632

191

App

rove

dW

ithou

t con

ditio

ns18

1221

287

53

2411

8W

ith c

ondi

tions

622

02

187

34

62D

enie

d0

01

13

10

39

Act

ion

defe

rred

01

00

00

01

2

1973

Inst

itutio

ns R

evie

wed

2233

831

2712

232

167

App

rove

dW

ithou

t con

ditio

ns16

97

2915

81

1499

With

con

ditio

ns6

241

29

31

1662

Den

ied

00

00

11

02

4A

ctio

n de

ferr

ed0

00

02

00

02

*Sta

tuse

s ar

e de

scri

bed

in p

rogr

am d

ocum

ents

ava

ilabl

e fr

om th

e O

ffic

e of

the

Com

mis

sion

.

ti cJt

Consultant-Evaluator Conferences

The focus of the education and training program forconsultants and evaluators who participate in the Commission'saccrediting activities is on the consultant-evaluator confer-ences, which have been held twice yearly, in fall and spring.

The conferences provide a means of direct communica-tion between the staff and members of the consultant-evaluatorcorps on the philosophy, policies, and procedures of the Com-mission. They also serve as a forum for the exchange of ideasand discussion of problems in higher education as they relateto accreditation. Some conference programs emphasize topicsof special interest or concern to the particular subgroup of theconsultant-evaluator corps attending. Participants in the four1972-1973 conferences considered such matters as collectivebargaining, the hidden agenda of the evaluator, the role of theevaluating team chairman, and developments in the Federationof Regional Accrediting Commissions of Higher Education.

Consultant-Evaluator Associates Program

Approximately 80 new consultant-evaluator associateswere selected in 1972 and again in 1973 to take part in a one-year orientation and training program preparatory to full par-ticipation in the consulting and evaluating activities of theCommission.

The year begins in September with an orientation con-ference, when new associates are introduced to the Commis-sion's philosophy, policies' and procedures, and methods ofevaluation. Under the guidance of experienced chairmen, theythen serve on an average of three on-site evaluation teams. Atthe spring meeting of the Commission, they have an oppor-tunity to observe the deliberations of reviewing committeesconsidering institutional accrediting actions and to review as agroup the year's experiences.

16

ISSUES OF INTEREST

Collective Bargaining

One of the major forces emerging in institutions servedby the North Central Association today is collective bargain-ing. As collective bargaining methods have become of increas-ing concern in setting the parameters of faculty-administrativerelationships, the Commission has sought to focus more sharplyon the effects of collective bargaining on the on-site evaluationprocess. Attention has been given to the topic in consultant-evaluator conferences over the past few years. A major portionof the fall 1972 conference was devoted to this factor, whenpapers related to it were presented by Bernard Mintz, Execu-tive Vice President of Baruch College of the City Universityof New York, and Ray A. Howe, Deputy Assistant to theSuperintendent of the Dearborn, Michigan, Public Schools.3

i After much discussion of experiences in the several re-gional accrediting associations, the executive secretaries anddirectors of the regional commissions recommended the follow-ing statement to the Council of the Federation of RegionalAccrediting Commissions of Higher Education for adoption.At this time, the statement is up for debate by FRACHE.

Draft Statement on Accreditation and Collective Bargaining

The decision to enter into a collective bargaining ar-rangement is primarily institutional, usually gov-erned by state laws in the case of public institutions,and federal laws or other factors in private institu-tions. The regional institutional accrediting com-missions take no position with respect to these deci-sions. However, they are appropriately concernedabout the impact of such arrangements on the qual-ity and effectiveness of educational institutions. In

3 Mr. Howe's paper, "Collective Bargaining and Accreditation in Higher Edu-cation: An Examiner's Point of View," appears in the winter 1973 issue ofthe North Central Association Quarterly.

17

that context, the regional commissions need to befully apprised of current developments with respectto contracts entered into by accredited or candidateinstitutions. When an institution having a collectivebargaining agreement is to be evaluated, a copy ofthe contract should be included among the docu-ments supplied to the accrediting commission andthe evaluation team. The team members will be ex-pected to refrain from comment on the terms of acontract except as they affect fulfillment of an in-stitution's purpose and objectives.

Under no circumstances will a regional commissionserve as an arbiter or otherwise become involved incollective bargaining activities. In scheduling evalua-tion visits, periods when contract negotiations areinprocess will be avoided, if possible. Prolonged Alter-ruption of an institution's instructional program willbe a matter of serious concern to the regional ac-crediting commission.

The Commission recognizes that its interest in condi-tions of faculty service, faculty-administrative relationships,and student relationships as they pertain to the whole area ofinstitutional governance will not be diminished by the fact thatcollective bargaining exists but, rather, that it must be pre-pared to give increasing attention to the effects of collectivebargaining on an institution's accredited status. Through itsaccrediting decisions, the Commission will continue to attemptto reinforce the concept of cooperation and seek to have thosevalues prevail that will prove ultimately to enhance the qual-ity of the educational enterprise and enable it to move forwardin defining and accomplishing its mission in a responsiblemanner.

18

The Accreditation of Institutions OfferingOccupational Education Programs: A Status Report

In 1969, the Commission on Institutions of Higher Edu-cation abolished the requirement that an institution be char-tered as a 'degree-granting institution for membership in theNorth Central Association. Thus, eligibility for membershipwas opened up to a wider variety of postsecondary institutions,particularly those in the occupational or career sector.

Before moving in this direction, the Executive Board ofthe Commission met with state representatives of occupationaleducation to discuss various alternatives. Among the possibili-ties were 1) establishment of a separate commission on occu-pational education within the framework of the North CentralAssociation; 2) establishment, with assistance from the Com-mission, of a totally separate accrediting agency; 3) affiliationwith another agency of vocational or occupational education,such as the American Vocational Association. An advisory com-mittee to the National Commission on Accrediting had beenformed earlier, but the efforts of this group to establish someindependent agency concerned with occupational educationaccreditation came to naught.

The major considerations entering into the discussionsof the Board and state representatives were development of thepeer evaluation system, revision of the traditional nature androle of general education in the curriculum, and changes in therole traditionally exercised by the Commission.

From the Commission's point of view, bringing the exer-cise of responsibilities in the postsecondary spectrum within oneframework seemed desirable, even though some strains werebound to be introduced at the outset and some of the usualpractices inherent in the more traditionally accredited institu-tions had to be not only stretched but revised. Furthermore,

19

the separation into institutional streams appeared to the Com-mission to be undesirable. From the standpoint of the repre-sentatives of occupational education, being in a more or lessarticulated framework appeared to be feasible. Advantagesotherwise unavailable would in fact accrue.

Fortunately, the Commission had gained experiencewith the accreditation of degree-granting technical institutesas early as 1959, when the Milwaukee Institute of Tech-nology, now the Milwaukee Area Technical College, wasaccredited. In 1969, it was followed by the Madison AreaTechnical College. Concomitantly, occupational education wasconsidered to be one of the major components of the com-munity colleges, and in the period of the 50's and 60's, a mush-rooming development was seen in the North Central Associa-tion area.

To consider the application of evaluative guidelines tooccupational education, a vocational-technical education com-mittee advisory to the Executive Board of the Commission wasformed and an interim statement adopted. The Commissionalso cooperated with and contributed to the study committeeof the American Vocational Association on evaluation of occu-pational education.

The number of institutions in the occupational areaseeking accreditation has increased rapidly over the past fewyears. To date, most of the institutions holding membershipor candidate for accreditation status are in the states of Wis-consin, Ohio, and Indiana; however, discussions about NorthCentral Association membership are also taking place in otherstates where career occupational institutions exist separatelyfrom community colleges.

20

In 1973, the first two diploma or certificate schools wereaccredited by the North Central Association: USAF School ofApplied Aerospace Sciences-Lowry, Lowry AFB, Colorado, andUSAF School of Applied Aerospace Sciences-Chanute, ChanuteTechnical Training Center, Illinois.

The development of both occupatioral education and theso-called non-traditional programs have influenced the NorthCentral Association in moving toward a revision of the Guideto the Evaluation of InstitutionE of Higher Education thatwill fuse the evaluation principles for all institutions. Furtherchanges will undoubtedly be necessary and desirable in the fu-ture as we continue to move into a framework of serving insti-tutions in the postcompulsory education spectrum. The Com-mission believes that the various segments can work togetherto serve the needs of contemporary society without denying anyof those attributes that have enabled our traditional institu-tions to provide outstanding services to individuals. Each sectorhas its unique role to play if the needs of individuals and so-ciety are to be met.

The American higher educational system is strong andhealthy. Such a system can tolerate some ambiguity and con-fusion and move forward as it reconciles the past with thevicissitudes of the present.

21

Evaluation of Foreign Study Programs

During the past decade the number of students fromUnited States institutions of higher education participating inforeign study programs has reached a high level: 32,000 U.S.students were involved in 208 foreign study programs duringthe academic year 1970-71, according to the Institute of Inter-national Education. Involvement of students in study abroadranges from travel tours and semesters to junior years andgraduate study.

Some of these ventures have been fraudulent or ap-proaching the fraudulentthe work of opportunistic promoterswhose only interest was in the profits to be derived. But eventhe programs sponsored by reputable institutions have in someinstances been of questionable quality. Removed from theparent institutions, they have not always been subject to ade-quate direction and supervision. The grow th, diversity, andproliferation of these activities have increasingly necessitatedsome form of effective review and assessment. The Federationof Regional Accrediting Commissions of Higher Education hasrecognized for some time the importance of evaluating studyprograms abroad sponsored by accredited institutions in theUnited States. This concern prompted FRACHE to enlist theparticipation of eleven colleges and universities. located within.he several accrediting regions in the conduct of a pilot studyin the spring of 1972. Locations in Madrid and Strasbourg wereselected for on-site evaluation because of the concentration ofprograms in those cities.

Gordon Sweet, Executive Secretary of the Commissionon Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges andSchools, was appointed by FRACHE to direct the studywith the assistance of Kay J. Andersen, Executive Director ofthe Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universi-ties, Western Association of Schools and Colleges. Dr. Allan 0.Pfnister, Professor of Higher Education, University of Denver,

22

was asked to join Dr. Sweet and Dr. Andersen in planning theevaluation project and was later named chairman of the evalua-tion team that conducted the on-site visits.

In addition to Dr. Pfnister, the visiting team was com-posed of the following: Dr. John Elmendorf, President of NewCollege, Sarasota, Florida; Dr. Yvette Fallandy, Provost andProfessor of French, California State College at Sonoma,Sonoma, California; Dr. Henry Holland, Professor of ModernLanguages, Colby College, Waterville, Maine; Dr. JosephineSobrino, Professor of Spanish, University of Houston, Houston,Texas. Detailed reports prepared by the committee for eachparticipating institution were sent to the institutions throughthe executive officer of the appropriate regional accreditingcommission. In addition to the individual reports, the teammade a number of general observations which applied in vary-ing degrees to the programs visited. Among these observationsare the following:

1. Primary Focus of the Study Abroad Programs

As the committee looked at the statements of ob-jectives and purpose of the study programs, theyfound that these have not always been accuratelystated or have not been reviewed since some of theprograms were initiated. Publications recruitingstudy participants are in some cases misleading.Study programs should be evaluated by the insti-tutions to determine if their objectives and the ob-jectives of the students have been met. Collegesshould evaluate not only the academic aspects butalso the emphasis on the cultural experience derivedfrom study abroad. Student participation in theevaluation process is essential. Publications intro-ducing students to foreign study should be informa-tive and thoroughly describe objectives and purpose,requirements for admission, medical services, costs,travel and living arrangements, courses to be taught,all faculty, names of study directors abroad, and thevalue of credits awarded.

23

2. Studying Abroad is Not Generally Studying at aForeign University

Study programs that depend on faculty or fa-cilities, wholly or in part, in foreign institutionsshould accurately state these arrangements to par-ticipants prior to departure abroad.

3. Admissions and Orientation

A variety of orientation programs were analyzedby the committee. These varied in extent and degreeof comprehensiveness and individual orientation onthe home campus, orientations on the home campusand on location abroad, or no orientation at all. Com-prehensive orientation programs on-site should beconducted to minimize "cultural shock" and shortenthe time necessary in adapting to the culture and thestudent's life-style abroad. An optimum orientationprogram will assist in the goal of maximum involve-ment and immersion of participants in the culture.An initial orientation should preferably be conductedon the home campus prior to departure. Componentsin the orientation programs are language facility anda background in the history and culture of the coun-try to be visited.

4. The Constituent Elements in the Program

Some programs were sound academically with stu-dent involvement in the history and culture abroad.Other programs failed to utilize the foreign site andfaculty within the instructional program and were"American Outposts" to which faculty, students, andstaff were airlifted and deposited.

5. Facilities

Study abroad programs rely heavily on inade-quate and poorly arranged libraries in institutionsabroad. Some collections of books (dictionaries, en-cyclopedias, and some other reference works) wereavailable for most of the study programs. A reviewof the curricula offered abroad indicated that learn-ing resources are need%id to support and augmentthese programs.

24

6. Continuing Evaluation

Some of the instructional programs were mediocreand were below the standard as advertised and de-scribed in brochures or compared with course require-ments on the parent campus. Some of the texts werehigh-school level. Students studying abroad wererightly concerned as to the quality and value of theirinstruction.

7. Cooperative Endeavors

The cost of study abroad varied. In some pro-grams high tuition resulted in a surplus over expendi-tures while others trimmed certain phases of the pro-gram to balance the budget. A realistic assessmentof the fiscal aspects of the programs needs to bemade.

8. Evaluation of Student Performance

Considerable confusion exists with regard to grad-ing practices and credit to be received by the par-ticipating students.

9. Role of the Field Director

The resident director is the key to a well-struc-tured educational experience for students studyingabroad. Language facility, physical and mental ca-pacity, maturity of teaching and administrative ex-perience, sound judgment, and previous foreign studyexperience are some of the components of a goodstudy director. Probably the greatest weakness is inchanging some directors annually so that they arewithout previous experience in coordinating studyabroad programs.

Because of the success of its initial endeavor, the Fed-eration plans a follow-up project to evaluate study abroad pro-grams in Germany. Thereafter, the Federation plans to continuethe evaluation of study abroad programs in keeping with thenature of -neral institutional accreditation. Evaluation of

25

these programs, which may be requested by an institution orits regional accrediting commission, will be coordinated byFRACHE with the cost to be shared by the participating in-stitutions on an equitable basis.

A more complete report of the pilot evaluation of foreignstudy programs has been published in the FRACHE document,Evaluation of Foreign Study Programs, 1973-1974. This pub-lication is available at $1.00 per copy from the Federation ofRegional Accrediting Commissions of Higher Education, OneDupont Circle, Washington, D.C. 20036.

26

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Res Lructuring of the North Central Association

Following a careful study of the functions of the NorthCentral Association and its constituent commissions, the Boardof Directors of the Association, at its meeting in June 1973,approved a plan for restructuring the organization.

Under the new structure, the two accrediting com-missions, the Commission on Institutions of Higher Educationand the Commission on Secondary Schools, will be given alarger measure of autonomy than they have possessed in thepast. The major changes are these:

1) The accrediting authority will be vested in the twocommissions subject to review by the Associationrather than having action taken pro forma by theAssociation as it has been in the past.

2) The accrediting commissions rather than the Asso-ciation will have the authority to determine the an-nual dues paid by im .:nber institutions and to adoptand administer their own budgets. Association activi-tiesthe Annual Meeting, publications, and the ac-tivities of the Commission on Research and Servicewill be funded by the two accrediting commissions.

The necessary revisions in the bylaws of the Associationhave been published in the fall 1973 issue of the North CentralAssociation Quarterly and will be submitted to the Associationat the Annual Meeting in March 1974.

27

Procedures of the Commission on Institutions ofHigher Education*

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

District AMichigan, Ohio, West VirginiaDistrict BIllinois, Indiana, WisconsinDistrict CIowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North

Dakota, South DakotaDistrict DArkansas, Kansas, Missouri, OklahomaDistrict EArizona, Colorado, New Mexico,

Wyoming

2. The member institutions of higher education of theAssociation shall be classified by type. The basis for this clas-sification shall be the highest degree offered by an institution,if any.

3. The members of the Commission on Institutions ofHigher Education, hereinafter referred to as the Commission,shall be selected from the member institutions by district andby type of institution. The Doctor's degree-granting institu-tions in each of the five districts shall be entitled to two Com-missioners for each ten institutions or major fraction thereofbut with a maximum of four Commissioners. The Master's andSpecialist's degree-granting institutions, the Bachelor's degree-granting institutions, the Associate degree-granting institutions,and the non-degree-granting institutions in each of the five dis-tricts shall be entitled to one Commissioner for each ten insti-tutions or major fraction thereof but with a maximum of fourCommissioners. The Commissioners shall serve for four-yearterms, one-fourth of the terms expiring each year, and shall beineligible for reelection until one year has elapsed. At any onetime there shall be no more than one Commissioner from anyone institution.

*As revised for presentation to the Commission at the 1974 Annual Meeting.

28

The Commissioners in each district shall suggest personsannually to replace those whose terms have expired in accor-dance with the formula covering the distribution of Commis-sioners by type of institution within the district. The sugges-tions from the districts shall be submitted to the NominatingCommittee for the Commission appointed annually by theExecutive Board. The Nominating Committee for the Commis-sion shall present its nominations to the Commission at thetime of the Annual Meeting of the Association. Election of theCommissioners shall be by the representatives of the memberinstitutions at the Annual Meeting on recommendation of the

Commission.

4. The Commission on Secondary Schools shall designatethree members of the Commission on Secondary Schools toserve on the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education.Secondary school members of the Commission shall serve forfour-year terms or until expiration of their terms on the Com-mission on Secondary Schools, whichever is shorter.

5. Determination of institutional status, accredited orpreaccredited, shall be made on the basis of on-site evaluationsconducted by teams appointed by the staff of the Commissionwith the authorization of the Executive Board. The reports of

the evaluation teams and other relevant materials shall beconsidered by reviewing committees composed of Commission-ers supplemented by experienced evaluators or, in some cases,directly by the Executive Board of the Commission. The review-ing committees shall be set up by the staff of the Commissionwith the authorization of the Executive Board of the Commis-sion. The actions of the reviewing committees relative to theaccredited status of institutions or a preaccredited status shall

be in the form of recommendations to the Executive Board.

Each Commissioner shall be assigned to one of thereviewing committees.

29

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 Institutionsof Higher Education shall be composed of twelve persons whoshall be elected by the Commission, plus the Director of theCommission. Except for the Director, all the members shallserve for staggered terms of five years without opportunity forreelection until one year has elapsed. The members of theExecutive Board shall be selected with due regard for geographicdistribution and institutional type but without specificationas to the number from each geographic district or type ofinstitution. All members of the Executive Board shall be mem-bers of the Commission. If the Commission term of one of thetwelve Board members expires before the expiration of histerm on the Board, he shall continue on the Commission asan added member until the expiration of his term on theExecutive Board.

It shall be the responsibility of the Executive Board

(a) To consider all reports on the basis of which actionsaffecting the affiliate or accredited status of institu-tions may be taken. At the Spring Meeting of theAssociation, the Executive Board shall make its rec-ommendations for action on such matters to theCommission which, in turn, shall make its recom-mendations to the Association or to the Board ofDirectors acting for the Association. At othermeetings, the recommendations of the ExecutiveBoard, acting for the Commission, shall be madedirectly to the Board of Directors acting for theAssociation.

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

30

(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 or affiliate institutions.

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

The Director of the Commission, elected by the Com-mission, shall be ex officio Secretary of the Executive Board. Heshall serve for a three-year term and be eligible for reelection.He shall be ex officio a member of the Executive Board withpower to vote, and of the Commission.

7. Each member institution of higher education, includ-ing units of an institution with separate accreditation, shalldesignate one person as the official North Central Associationrepresentative, and he shall represent his institution at theAnnual Meetings of the Association. It is expected that therepresentative will be the chief administrative officer of theinstitution or someone designated by him.

8. An institution of higher education holding accreditedstatus or an affiliate status shall not be removed from thestatus without an on-site evaluation unless it (1) voluntarilywithdraws from its relationship with the North Central Associa-tion; (2) fails to comply with the requirements of the Commis-sion, such as the payment of dues and fees or the submissionof reports; or (3) permanently ceases to operate as an educa-tional institution.

Institutions holding affiliate status shall automaticallylose that status upon reaching the end of the term for thestatus unless action is taken to change its status or grant anextension of its current status.

31

9. Requests submitted by institutions relative to recon-sideration of Association action will be referred by the ExecutiveSecretary of the Association to the Committee on Reconsidera-tion of the Commission. The Committee shall consist of fivepersons and a maximum of four alternates all to be appointedby the Chairman of the Commission subject to the approvalof the Commission for staggered three-year terms. No memberof the Committee shall serve concurrently on the Commissionor the Board of Directors of the Association. No member ofthe Committee shall be appointed for more than two con-secutive terms.

Requests for reconsideration of decisions of the Associa-tion shall be filed with the Executive Secretary of the Associa-tion not sooner than ten days and not more than thirty daysfollowing the meeting at which the decisions were made andshall represent official action of the governing bodies of theinstitutions concerned. The basis for such requests for recon-sideration shall be alleged bias, injustice, departure from estab-lished procedures, or factual error of sufficient magnitude towarrant reconsideration of the decision. Such allegations shallbe supported by evidence in writing, submitted by the institu-tion making the request.

Deliberations of the Committee shall be in accordancewith procedures set forth in the bylaws of the Association.Actions of the Committee shall be in the form of recommenda-tions to the Board of Directors of the Association.

10. These Procedures may be amended or repealed andnew Procedures may be adopted upon recommendation of three-fourths of the Commissioners.

32