MATERIALES COMERCIALES NITROGENO

A major point in the evolution of standards occurred during the 1950s, when enrolments were growing rapidly and many new institutions came into existence. As one of their responses to this period of expansion, accrediting agencies adopted several new rules that added to the overall structure of regulation. Two areas especially should be noted: first, they put in place new conditions of eligibility, that is, baseline requirements that institutions must meet before they can be considered for accreditation and, second, they developed rules that stipulated the types of institutional changes that require agency notification outside of the normal schedule of external review. The introduction of basic conditions for eligibility served, in part, as a screening device. It allowed regional accrediting agencies to undertake formal accrediting reviews only with institutions that had

shown adequate preparation for accreditation review and, too, only with institutions that had made serious progress towards offering a quality educational programme. An example of basic conditions of eligibility, formulated by the Southern Association, is shown in Annex 5. These criteria detail the organizational characteristics that would be expected of an institution getting ready to undergo an initial accreditation review.

Requirements for eligibility, which continue in place today, represent an additional set of standards that all member institutions have to meet. Several regional accrediting agencies remind member institutions that, in conducting a self-study, they need to meet the terms of both the basic eligibility conditions and the accrediting standards.

Policies on major change were also introduced, adding further to the requirements that accrediting agencies imposed on institutions. Here, too, these policies were developed during the post-Second World War period. In response to enrolment growth and to a growing diversity of student interests, higher education institutions adopted many changes in their programmes, ranging from modest revisions to core curricula to other, far-reaching changes in the structure of instruction and the locations in which education is offered. In some instances, new ‘satellite’ locations were established. Other institutions established unusual time schedules, including ‘weekend’ colleges that compressed academic instruction into Friday evenings and Saturdays. Fieldwork became a popular supplement to classroom- based instruction, as institutions developed internship opportunities, placements with employers, or study and work projects in other settings.

Accrediting commissions found that they needed clear guidelines about what changes triggered a need to inform the accrediting

agencies and what changes did not trigger such a requirement. In response, several regional agencies developed a policy on substantive change, which was added to their accreditation standards. These policies described the circumstances that would be considered a change of such magnitude or seriousness that an institution would be required to report the change to the accrediting agency even before implementing the change.

Procedures developed by the New England Association, shown in Annex 8, illustrate a typical approach. It spells out the requirements for prior notification about certain types of institutional changes considered to be substantive, i.e. changes that would significantly affect the nature of the institution, its mission, objectives, its educational programme or allocation of resources. In NEASC’s view, “…substantive changes initiated subsequent to the most recent evaluation are not automatically included in the institution’s accreditation” (NEASC, Criteria…, 1997). Thus, NEASC recognizes the right of institutions to make such changes, but reserves for itself the right to determine whether the change would affect the institution’s accreditation.

NEASC also established a category of limited change that would not require Commission review. It did not, however, provide specific guidance about how limited change would be determined. Under its procedures, such changes could be approved by the Director of NEASC without a full review but also could include conditions such as requiring the institution to disclose the trial nature of a change.

The North Central Association (NCA) is more explicit in distinguishing between the two types of change. Changes that did not require prior notification are those that stay “…within the mission and scope of the institution (e.g. changing personnel, redefining course requirements, or initiating joint programmes between two

accredited institutions)”. Changes that must be reported to the NCA are listed in its 1997 Handbook, and include:

• changes in educational programmes (e.g. adding a different degree level, initiating a significant new academic programme that requires substantial new financial investment);

• changes in locations (e.g. opening or closing an instructional site); relations with other institutions/groups (e.g. contracting, mergers, changes in institutional affiliation);

• relationships with students/faculty/administration/governing body (e.g. changing the nature of the student body, significant reduction in programmes or faculty, highly publicized controversies); and

• financial and ethical matters (e.g. concerns about financial viability, serious legal or financial investigations, disasters affecting physical facilities) (NCA, 1997, pp. 162-163).

The NCA has stated its obligation to “…seek assurance that institutional changes …are both appropriate to the institution and within the institution’s capability of providing with quality” (p. 161). The NCA specifies that certain changes require either an on-site visit, an evaluator panel, or a continuing monitoring process. For significant changes, institutions are required to inform the NCA in writing and to expect a period of at least six months for Commission review before the change can be approved.