Standard One – Student Learning Environment and Outcomes

1C: Accreditation and Program Review

Points: 10 points for community colleges and 15 points for universities

Purpose: This assessment indicator is designed to provide incentives for institutions to achieve and maintain program excellence and accreditation.

Evaluation: For those programs that are accreditable, evaluation will be based on the percentage of eligible programs which are accredited. For those programs that are non-accreditable, evaluation will be based on a set of objective standards. All institutions with the exception of University of Memphis and UT Knoxville must evaluate each non-accreditable program at least once during the five year performance funding cycle. University of Memphis and UT Knoxville are required to evaluate their programs on a seven-year and 10-year cycle, respectively.

Processes – Accreditation:

            1. Only programs which appear on the Tennessee Higher Education Commission’s Academic Program Inventory are eligible under this standard. Options and concentrations are not covered under this standard, even if separately accredited.

            2. A program is defined as eligible for the accreditation aspect of this indicator if there is a recognized agency which accredits programs for that field and degree level. Commission staff will maintain a list of approved accrediting agencies. The Commission reserves the right to determine if program accreditation is consonant with institutional mission and/or the state master plan for higher education.

            3. Institutions or groups of institutions may petition the Commission through their respective governing boards to add or delete accrediting agencies from the approved list located in Appendix C. An agency may be added or deleted upon affirmation from a majority of the institutions affected by the nominated agency. If an accrediting agency is added to the approved list, current programs impacted by this decision will be exempt from achieving accreditation during the 2005-10 cycle. If an accrediting agency is removed from the list and the program accreditation expires before the 2005-10 cycle ends, the academic program will be subject to peer review during the 2005-10 cycle.

            4. All academic programs should be considered for accreditation, unless they meet the following exceptions:

            • Have been approved by the Commission for fewer than three years for pre-baccalaureate programs and fewer than five years for baccalaureate and graduate programs , unless the program is accredited by a recognized agency;

            • Have been terminated or are being phased out by governing board action;

            • Have been placed on "inactive" status by the governing board;

            • Appropriate accrediting agency does not exist;

            • Have obstacles to accreditation because of program organization or curriculum.

            5. Each institution will submit to the governing boards and Commission documentation in support of all accredited programs by October 15, 2005.

            6. Proposals for changes in the eligibility of accredited programs must be submitted to Commission staff by January 1 of each year of the cycle.

            7. If multiple programs are accredited by a single agency, each program counts separately for this indicator.


 

            8. A program eligible for accreditation by more than one agency will be counted only once for this indicator, although all accreditation must be reported so that the Commission can maintain accurate accreditation information.

 

Scoring – Accreditation:

The number of accredited programs will be divided by the total number of accreditable programs to calculate the overall accreditation percentage. This percentage is used to generate points for this standard based on Table 3 Accreditation.

Table 3

Percent accredited

Below 74%

75% to 81%

82%-87%

88%-93%

94%-99%

100%

Points

0

1

2

3

4

5

 

Processes – Program Review:

            1. All non-accreditable certificate and degree programs must be evaluated through the traditional program review or Academic Audit. The only exception is for non-accreditable programs that are in phase-out or inactive status at the beginning of the cycle. If a program becomes become inactive during the cycle, the scheduled program shall also be exempt. Institutions shall have the flexibility in determining which evaluation method is most suitable for the program review process.

            2. The traditional program review must be conducted by at least one qualified out-of-state external reviewer. Selection of reviewers is subject to review by governing boards and Commission staff. The Academic Audit process must be conducted by the guidelines established by the Tennessee Board of Regents.

            3. All programs approved by THEC as of November 2004 will be reviewed during the 2005-10 cycle. New programs approved after January 2005 and reaching program maturity during the 2005-10 cycle must be evaluated through program review. Program maturity for certificate and associate degree programs is defined as a three year period after implementation; program maturity for baccalaureate and graduate programs is a five year period after implementation. Prior to program maturity, new programs are subject to the annual Post-Approval Monitoring guidelines as set forth in THEC Academic Policy A1.1 for Academic Proposals.

            4. Each institution will notify the board and Commission of its cycle of evaluations for all non-accreditable programs by October 15, 2005. This schedule must coincide with the five year Performance Funding cycle. Furthermore, all institutions with the exception of University of Memphis and UT Knoxville are required to review approximately 20% of their non-accreditable programs per year. University of Memphis is required to review approximately 15% of their non-accreditable programs per year. UT Knoxville is required to review 10% of their non-accreditable programs per year.

            5. Scoring will be cumulative and new scores will be added in each succeeding year of the cycle.

            6. For each non-accreditable program reviewed through the traditional peer review process, the completed summary evaluation sheet, narrative report and vitas of the external reviewer(s) must be included with the institution’s performance funding reporting template.

            7. For each non-accreditable program reviewed using the Academic Audit process, the completed summary evaluation sheet, narrative repot and list of audit team members must be included with the institution’s performance funding template. THEC reserves the right to request additional documentation related to accreditation and program review as needed.

            8. Care must be taken in establishing the review schedule, for it is expected that the institution will strictly adhere to it. Requests for changes to the schedule must be approved by governing board and Commission staff by January 1 of the reporting year.

Scoring for Non-Accreditable Undergraduate Programs:

For non-accreditable undergraduate programs, scoring is accomplished by dividing the total number of successful standards met by the total number of scored standards, excluding those judged “Not Applicable.” The resulting percentage will be applied to Table 4 to award points.

Table 4

Successful standards

Below 50%

50%-60%

61%-70%

71%-80%

81%-90%

91%-100%

Points

0

1

2

3

4

5

Scoring for Non-Accreditable Graduate Programs:

Graduate programs are evaluated in two parts: (1) objective standards and (2) qualitative standards. The objective standards are scored by averaging the objective standards met for all programs being evaluated. The resulting value is compared to Table 5 to determine the points awarded.

Table 5

Average objective standards met

0, 1, 2

3,4

5

6

7

8

Points

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

 

The qualitative standards are scored by averaging the qualitative scores for all programs being evaluated. The resulting value is compared to Table 6 to determine the points awarded.

Table 6

Average qualitative standards met

Below 1

1-1.4

1.5-1.8

1.9-2.3

2.4-2.7

2.8 and above

Points

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

 

The points awarded from the two tables above are summed to obtain the total points awarded for this indicator.