1 / 10

SERVICE, ENGAGEMENT, AND ACCREDITATION

SERVICE, ENGAGEMENT, AND ACCREDITATION. Presidential Summit Commitment to Civic Engagement October 3, 2006 Oklahoma City, OK Dr. Steven Crow Executive Director, HLC/NCA. Accreditation Criteria. Restructuring Expectations Project, 2001-2003

mareo
Download Presentation

SERVICE, ENGAGEMENT, AND ACCREDITATION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SERVICE, ENGAGEMENT, AND ACCREDITATION Presidential Summit Commitment to Civic Engagement October 3, 2006 Oklahoma City, OK Dr. Steven Crow Executive Director, HLC/NCA

  2. Accreditation Criteria • Restructuring Expectations Project, 2001-2003 • Informed by new mission statement, “Serving the common good . . .” • Extensive participation from many constituencies • Criterion Five: “As called for by its mission, the organization identifies its constituencies and serves them in ways both value.”

  3. Learn from constituencies and analyze capacity to serve Commitment and capacity to engage and provide service Demonstrate responsiveness to dependent constituencies Internal and external constituencies value the organization’s services CRITERION FIVE: CORE COMPONENTS

  4. FIT WITH OTHER CRITERIA • Engagement/service is mission driven (especially 1a, 1b) • Engagement/service is a commitment now and in the future (especially 2a, 2c) • Engagement/service is shaped by capacity (especially 2b, 2d) • Engagement/service relates to student learning (especially 3c) • Engagement/service is fit to purpose (especially 4a, 4c)

  5. GOALS AND HOPES • Trigger organization-wide conversations • Stimulate conscious reconnections between the academy and the society it serves • Relevance of learning/curriculum • Preparation for productive lives • Contribute to more transparent pathways of learning • Prepare for new conversations on national accountability

  6. Standard responses: Civic/national memberships Continuing education unit Community events and services (faculty/student) Internships and clinicals Research/studies Larger possibilities: Curriculum advisory groups Integrate service learning Cooperative endeavors and partnerships New programming State initiatives APPLICATION

  7. PEER REVIEWER ANALYSIS • Too many lists; too little evaluation • Often skimpy because good evidence was used elsewhere to prove other points • Institutions are missing the point of the Criterion: pervasiveness of engagement and service in institutional culture • Might be better understood if it came right after Criterion One • The place to talk about serving the “common good,” but the opportunity is missed

  8. IMPORTANT QUESTIONS • Can an institution be engaged and not have formal partnerships with other organizations? • Doesn’t effective service and engagement require more specialization within IHEs? • How do accountability and engagement differ? • Must every institution’s mission involve serving external constituencies?

  9. SUPPORT AND SERVICES • Annual Meeting programming (Collected Papers) • Policy Center for the First Year of College: Special emphasis self-study • “Best Practice in Partnering: Developing Capacity” workshop • Participation at state and regional meetings and initiatives • Support for Campus Compact and CCNCCE

  10. THE HIGHER LEARNING COMMISSION Steve Crow, Executive Director 30 N. LaSalle, #2400 Chicago, IL 60602 800-621-7440 x 102 www.ncahlc.org

More Related