These experiences are incredibly time-consuming, are increasingly focused on data and student learning outcomes, and can lead institutional leaders to sometimes justified states of paranoia. Nevertheless, you can survive your regional accreditation. While I use SACS as my prototype for a survival guide, I am confident that the strategies I suggest below are equally applicable to any accreditation effort.

1. Work on your SACS appeal. This strategy requires you to be attentive to allurements. Of course, when the visiting committee arrives on campus, you want to be sure that your buildings and grounds are in their very best shape. It will not hurt to do whatever you can to encourage faculty and students to manifest their best manners and to show extreme courtesy to the honored visitors. But your SACS appeal also can be enhanced by how you present your documents to the accrediting agency even before anyone arrives on campus. Do you have an attractive cover design? Has your formatting followed all the specified requirements? Do your various documents show your institution in its best light? If not, you may end up making an appeal to SACS to show how you have remedied your weaknesses.

2. Develop Your SACS education program. You should not be surprised to find that many faculty and students are oblivious to the existence of accreditation agencies and have very little idea about their importance to your survival. Both during the self-study process and the follow-up visitation from a committee of your peers, it is crucial that you educate the entire campus to the significance of the enterprise and the nature of its importance to your own survival. Your educational strategies should cover the gamut of your communication processes: regular and special meetings of faculty, students, and trustees; updates and announcements on your campus website; and educational forums to discuss issues and ideas related to the accreditation.

3. Practice safe SACS. Often, the greatest challenge for academic leaders involved in the accrediting process is the unknown. Will the chair of the visiting committee be reasonable and supportive? Has the steering committee addressed all the standards completely and accurately? Have there been any unanticipated changes in the accrediting agencies’ operating procedures—or even the development of new standards not yet contained in the accreditors’ manuals? You will want to do everything possible to eliminate unanticipated surprises that have resulted in part because you have not protected the institution to the maximum extent possible.

4. Anticipate SACS harassment. Regional accreditations used to be more social, congenial, and enjoyable than they are now. While you can be reasonably confident that your peers will be highly motivated and will understand your responses to standards from your perspective, this may not always be the case. To be sure, this is a “quid pro quo” relationship with an outside agency that is responsible for a thorough evaluation. If you give them what they demand, they will give you your desired accreditation. Because regional accrediting agencies have attempted to forestall federal takeovers of the accrediting process—an actual proposal afloat in Washington—they have become determined to be rigorous stewards of institutional quality. For you, this may create the appearance of a “hostile work environment” as evaluators press you for your information, your cooperation, and your compliance. While you may feel harassed, it is wise to assume the best intentions from those who have “invaded your personal space.” After all, they are just trying to do their jobs well.

5. Pursue SACS therapy. At some point, the process will come to an end. Not really an end, you might note, as accrediting agencies will do their best to keep you in line and continually focused on the demands of the agency. This may take the form of “probationary status,” “monitoring reports,” or “periodic reviews.” But once the intensity of the self-study and the visit is over, you should take steps to return the campus to its previous state of healthy equilibrium. Celebrate whatever successes you can identify; assure those who feel wounded that you appreciate their efforts and understand their frustrations. Identify small ways that you can reward those who have participated in the process. It is important to develop healthy SACS relations while also helping those on your campus to conclude that the accrediting process is ultimately a very satisfying one—when you have survived.

Conclusion
It is unlikely that many faculty or administrators have chosen their professions based on the opportunity to enjoy the process of accreditation. Nevertheless, the regional accreditation of your institution is an important mark of success and an essential ingredient in its development. The survival strategies above are intended to help you think through the best ways to succeed in the face of increasingly complex and demanding accrediting policies and practices. The ultimate objective, however, should not just be to survive such processes, but indeed to thrive as you help your institution become the best it can be.

Excerpted from Surviving Your Regional Accreditation: A Tongue-in-Cheek Reflection, Academic Leader, February 2009.

Thomas R. McDaniel is a professor of education and senior vice president at Converse College in Spartanburg, S.C.

Typically, this means that institutions file reports that show the institution to be in compliance with certain standards as demonstrated by statistical assessments. (Remember that the art of statistics is the ability to draw a perfectly straight line from a faulty assumption to a fallacious conclusion.) Who could be opposed to “accountability,” a term as revered as “Mom” and “apple pie”? But dig deeper and some might wonder: Who is accountable to whom for what?

It might be helpful for academic leaders to reflect on such questions. It seems to me that the concept of educational accountability has morphed through several murky, even mysterious, stages, in less than a straight line from assumptions to conclusions:

Stage #1—The Parent is accountable. One of the earliest educational laws in colonial America was a statute in 1642 in Massachusetts, declaring that “the great neglect of parents … in training up their children in learning” could result in the court assessing fines to said parents. Churches also took on a major role in ensuring that students were accountable for certain values in the young. Only after the development of schools in the 18th century did accountability for student learning shift elsewhere.

Stage #2—The Student is accountable. Once students became the charges of public schools, the expectation was that they would follow the established curriculum, standards of behavior, and evaluation processes. Parents would get report cards showing progress, and if a student was punished in school, the parents would follow suit at home. Such accountability concepts assumed that teachers, administrators, and school board members would make the rules and issue the judgments.

Stage #3—The Teacher is accountable. By the middle of the 20th century, testing of students was joined by testing of teachers. Certification of teachers by states often mandated successful passing scores on such standardized tests as the National Teacher’s Exam (now itself morphed into the PRAXIS exams developed by the Educational Testing Service). By this time, state departments of education, other governmental agencies, and accrediting bodies were requiring teachers to be accountable for their professional and academic knowledge and performance. State dismissal laws specified “just cause” for firing “incompetent” or “unfit” teachers.

Stage #4—The Institution is accountable. This is our current stage, and it extends from the pre-K level through higher education. Today the entire educational system is being held accountable, not merely for the quality of its faculty, curriculum, and facilities (so-called inputs) but also student learning, behavior, and success—in the school and beyond. To enforce this latest form of educational accountability, institutions have developed elaborate planning and assessment mechanisms and face increasing levels of inspection to see if “student learning outcomes” have been achieved. If not, accreditation, funding, and reputation are in jeopardy. And now the federal government is itching to make colleges accountable to it.

So, academic leaders, what is next? I have no idea. Dealing with the responsibilities of institutional accountability for learning outcomes keeps me too busy to speculate on the future of this “conundrum” for administrators.

What future do YOU see for accountability in higher education? Please leave your comments below.

Thomas R. McDaniel is a professor of education, senior vice president, and acting dean of graduate studies at Converse College in Spartanburg, S.C.

Excerpted from Parting Shot: The Accountability Conundrum, Academic Leader, Feb. 2007.

Writer Ed Wynn once observed, “Folks used to be willing to wait patiently for a slow-moving stagecoach, but now they kick like the dickens if they miss one revolution of a revolving door.” I know what he means; don’t you? High-tech communication devices can make us more productive and efficient, but making good decisions can be impaired when quantity squeezes out quality. Multitasking only compounds the manic high-speed pace as we rush to process an increasing volume of information.

Being never out of touch—at work, in our homes, and in our cars—has its downside. Leaders need time to muse, reflect, and daydream, and fortunate is the administrator who can locate hassle-free zones for such opportunities to shake off the effects of infomania.

We need to remember that good leaders take time to do things correctly. The key is to work at the right speed, not the top speed. What can we do to find our “inner snail”? Check your email on a regular schedule only once a day. Avoid sending long email responses (instead master the quick reply: “Got it—thanks,” “Will do,” “When can we meet?” “Call me.”). Establish rules for meetings by requiring cell phones, BlackBerries, and laptops to be turned off. Schedule more face-to-face meetings. Schedule time for meditation. Take a five-minute mental health break every hour. Find one hobby that slows you down (such as painting or gardening). Practice deep breathing while you shower or bathe. Turn off the TV and read a book.

In his book Timelock, Ralph Keyes says, “Just as we looked for ways to speed up life in earlier epochs, now we must find ways to slow it down.” Avoid the “speed trap” of your administrative life by occasionally stepping on the brakes instead of the academic accelerator. Our productivity and peace of mind depend on it.

Thomas R. McDaniel is a professor of education, senior vice president, and acting dean of graduate studies at Converse College in Spartanburg, S.C.

Excerpted from Academic Leader, June 2007.

Epictetus was a first-century Stoic philosopher born in the ancient city of Hierapolis to Greek parents and sold into slavery at a young age to one of Nero’s imperial guards. Later in life, he moved to Nicopolis, opened a school there, and taught until he was an old man. Epictetus tried to give his students sound advice on basic human issues, especially how to deal with hardship without losing peace of mind. His philosophical principles reflect the Stoic ideal of living happily no matter what life might throw at you.

So, in our contemporary world that often delights in inflicting pain on academic leaders, what would Epictetus do? In his Handbook, compiled by his student Arrian, he provides guidance of value for us now. He starts with a declaration: “Some things are up to us and others are not.” Think about what causes you the most conflict and anxiety as an administrator. How much of that results from trying to make decisions outside your area of responsibility? How much from useless worrying over decisions others must make? As Epictetus said, “Exercise yourself, then, in what is within your power. … Whoever wants to be free, let him neither want anything, nor avoid anything, that depends on others.”

Other admonitions are also worth our consideration: Be master of yourself—your emotions, thoughts, actions. Strive for inner peace—not reputation, praise, or power. Choose to do what is right and good—you can always choose your attitude. Be satisfied by what you need, not what you want.

When I try to do what I think Epictetus would do, I always feel more calm and confident as an academic administrator. Wouldn’t you?

Thomas R. McDaniel is a professor of education, senior vice president, and acting dean of graduate studies at Converse College in Spartanburg, S.C.

Reprinted from Parting Shot: What Would Epictetus Do?, Academic Leader, June 2007.

These student evaluations are so much a part of our system and have become so routine for our students and faculty that I have seldom questioned their value or necessity. Indeed, one study of 600 liberal arts colleges found that the number of schools asking students to evaluate their instructors had escalated from 29 percent to 86 percent over the course of a decade. But are they really (as Martha Stewart might say) “a good thing?”

I am not as sure as I once was. In recent years, academics and researchers have identified a host of concerns, objections, and questions about student evaluations of faculty, including these:

1. Are students qualified to judge the quality of a professor’s pedagogy and academic expertise? And it is not just a matter of competence. There is a kind of consumer mentality at work when we ask students to provide their anonymous “customer satisfaction” ratings for courses. It may not be in the best interest of faculty or students to assume this right and such a level of competence. These evaluations may have an effect on the faulty-student relationship that is disturbingly negative.

2. Are students evaluating teaching effectiveness—or something else? That might depend on the evaluation instrument, the insight of the student, the personality of the faculty member, the motivation and fairness of the young evaluator, and myriad other variables that make the fundamental validity of the process doubtful.

3. Are faculty rights to academic freedom compromised by the pressures to secure favorable student evaluations? Some faculty critics point out that the power students exercise through the evaluation of courses tends to make teaching a popularity contest resulting in easier assignments, grade inflation, and entertainment values that supersede rigorous academic standards and inhibit faculty freedom to advance controversial or unpopular ideas.

4. Are administrators using student evaluations to intrude on the privacy of the classroom and to manipulate faculty behavior? Heaven forbid! (I say); but the director of the office of educational assessment at one large state university reviewed the research and opined that “if student ratings are to qualify as evidence in support of faculty employment decisions, questions concerning their reliability and validity must be addressed.”

So you see, administrator colleagues, why I have new-found reservations about student evaluations of faculty. Are these a “good thing”? Maybe not. That’s my view—what’s yours? Please share your comments below.

Thomas R. McDaniel, professor of education, is a senior vice president at Converse College.

Excerpted from August 2006, Academic Leader.

This movement has created a significant amount of controversy, with strong proponents on both sides of the issue. Many argue that it is essential for colleges and universities to embrace the standards movement and to verify their educational value (which now comes at what may seem an extraordinary cost to the public) by way of comprehensive and sophisticated assessment systems. In the public school sector, this is often announced to the public by so-called “report cards” for schools, required by the sweeping federal legislation known as No Child Left Behind.

In higher education, we are now finding similar reform movements accompanied by increasing demand for quantitative proof (or at least some evidence) to justify the high cost of a college education. Some argue that this has now become the primary responsibility of accrediting agencies-not only regional accrediting bodies but also the myriad of specialty accreditations for an extensive array of professional and disciplinary curricula. This alphabet soup of accrediting agencies includes such formidable bodies as NASAD (art), NASM (music), NLNAC (nursing), NCATE (education), FIDER (interior design), and AACSB (business), to mention but a few. These agencies have done much in recent years to base accreditation processes and decisions on “outcomes” rather than “inputs.” The major concept here is that a college and its programs should be measured not by the qualifications of its faculty, the claims made in catalogs or on syllabi, or the library and other resources in the institution, but rather by student performance in both qualitative and quantitative measures of achievement.

For institutions of higher learning, the consequence of this paradigm shift has been the creation of a wide range of assessment procedures-many of them emphasizing the quantitative side of the equation-to provide these agencies with the outcome evidence required to show that the accreditation standards have been met. Some argue that such measures are essential to convince a skeptical public that there is value in the educational commodity for which they are paying a premium. Others point out that the accrediting agencies are serving a purpose that they are uniquely qualified to provide and that may well stem the tide of heavy-handed governmental impositions of accountability.

Questions

These arguments may indeed be true. Nonetheless, it seems to me appropriate for educational leaders to reflect on a number of questions that follow from this now reigning concept of accountability and accreditation:

1. Are the premises of the accountability movement in higher education justified? This is to say that there may be reason to question the notion that outcomes should replace inputs, that quantitative score keeping is the best way to determine the value of educational services, that the public is truly skeptical of the utility of investment in a college education, and that government is ready to leap into the breach if accrediting agencies do not save the day. This is also to question the premise that standards established by external agencies-which are granted the authority to close or sanction programs or entire institutions-should guide (or even control) the mission, policy, and curriculum of higher education. Are these premises in fact true and compelling?
2. Are the requirements for assessment-and the vast bureaucratic mechanisms required to generate the data-worth the cost and effort? This question should be considered within the context of any individual institution of higher learning, but there is reason to contend that the scarce resources of an institution might better serve the mission of the institution in some other activity or enterprise. To answer this question it would be necessary to calculate the cost of personnel, hardware, software, committee structures, report generation, etc., and determine if the cost justifies the commitment and resources allocated. However, as long as accrediting agencies have the power to demand such outcome evidence, institutions may have no alternative. Are there any possible alternatives?
3. In the long run, does this kind of outcomes-based accountability lead to improvements in educational institutions? Accrediting agencies typically go beyond merely requiring the collection and reporting of data to insist that institutions aggregate, disaggregate, and analyze data and from that process determine specific improvements that should be made to all aspects of the institution’s operation. Such processes must be continuous and a part of assessment reports. Are these requirements leading to the most important and desirable improvements in the institution? For example, would more subjective and qualitative measures result in harder-to-validate but better institutions?

Conclusion

As I mentioned, this is not a rant but rather a plea for institutions to take opportunities for reflection on the accreditation processes that presumably ensure institutional effectiveness. As ingrained as the standards movement has become, with its concomitant requirement for comprehensive assessment systems to measure outcomes, it would nonetheless be a mistake for academic leaders to merely assume that such processes and activities ensure a better institution. What is the most appropriate relationship between internal and external locus of control when it comes to higher education policy decisions? There are points at which assessment can become a mania and bureaucratic processes become pathological. We may simply go through the motions to produce results that bypass the best thought and evaluation required for truly effective education. Some academic leaders are rightly concerned that the demands of “outcomes accountability” may undermine rather than enhance the intellectual joy and creativity of the college classroom, establishing a “tail wagging the dog” approach to education that may not be in the best interest of students or faculty. Let us, then, take time to pause and reflect-and then determine platforms and positions that make the most sense for higher education.

What do you think? Send your comments to partingshot@magnapubs.com

Thomas R. McDaniel is a professor of education, senior vice president, and acting dean of graduate studies at Converse College in Spartanburg, S.C. Contact him at Tom.McDaniel@Converse.edu.