PAIS Newsletter - October 2014 (Plain Text Version)

Return to Graphical Version

In this issue:
Articles
•  LETTER FROM THE CHAIR
•  LETTER FROM THE EDITORS
Articles
•  SEVP GUIDANCE ON CONDITIONAL ADMISSION AND ESL BRIDGE PROGRAMS: STAY TUNED
•  THE GOLD STANDARD OF ACCREDITATION: STRIVING FOR SUCCESS
•  RENEWING ESL WRITING PROGRAMS WITH SUMMATIVE PORTFOLIOS
•  INCLUDING THE PARAPROFESSIONAL IN PROGRAM PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION
ABOUT THIS INTEREST SECTION
•  ABOUT THE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION INTEREST SECTION

THE GOLD STANDARD OF ACCREDITATION: STRIVING FOR SUCCESS

Leonardo A. Mercado, Instituto Cultural Peruano Norteamericano (ICPNA), Lima, Peru

In the standards-oriented culture of our field, English language programs must vie for students in highly competitive market environments. The challenge for organizations therefore is to gain a level of academic prestige that highlights their programs to those who wish to study English as a second or foreign language. Accreditation is fast becoming a priority for organizations that want to ensure quality learning experiences and maximize their ability to attract new students and retain current enrollments. Achieving accreditation allows such organizations to have an important, highly discernible means for differentiating themselves from other offerings on the market. Because of everything an accreditation process demands from programs and staff, the difference between accredited and nonaccredited institutions is usually significant and will likely increase over time. In the future, wide-scale accreditation efforts are certain to establish a new “gold standard” to which any high quality language program will aspire.

Getting the Green Light

Before actually pursuing language program accreditation, key organizational decision makers must make certain that conditions are favorable for such an undertaking. This requires that the following questions be answered first and foremost: “Why do we want accreditation?” and “Are we ready for it?” Without a clear sense of purpose, the effort of pursuing accreditation may be doomed to failure from the very beginning. Accreditation is the logical next step for organizations that already have a culture of self-assessment; language programs that are not accustomed to regularized performance and curricular review should first establish the foundations upon which high standards can be sought and achieved. However, it is not enough to know why you want accreditation for your organization; the resources to make it happen must also be available and ensured throughout the entire process.

Language program administrators and other key organizational decision makers should review the alternatives for accreditation that most suit their institution’s needs and expectations. It is imperative to thoroughly research the process and potential benefits of each option. Among the most well-known accrediting agencies, we find the Commission on English Language Program Accreditation (CEA); based in Alexandria, Virginia, USA, it offers accreditation to domestic and international organizations through comprehensive assessments of their English language programs, including areas such as the organizational mission, curriculum, faculty, administrative and fiscal policies, program planning and development, student services, and recruitment.

Another highly reputable alternative is Evaluation and Accreditation of Quality in Language Services (EAQUALS), which is an independent accrediting agency that is recognized by the Council of Europe. It is designed for language study programs that have a referential correspondence to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and focuses on curriculum, assessment systems, teaching, resources, quality assurance, and other areas.

Taking the Big Step

In the case of the CEA and EAQUALS, the accreditation processes are very similar. They begin with an initial application for consideration of eligibility, followed by a preliminary on-site inspection or preparatory workshop. The next step is a “self-study” or “self-assessment” undertaken by the applying program. This is perhaps the most important part of the entire accreditation process. It engages the organization in an internal review of all systems, processes, procedures, practices, and documentation that support the academic study program and the diverse stakeholders involved. Organizations are required to engage in what usually amounts to a 1-year to 18-month long self-assessment of their academic programs in terms of the degree to which they meet the standards required for accreditation. When there is a gap between what is expected and what is actually available or enacted, the organization must take prompt and decisive steps to align itself with the standards. Accrediting agencies such as the CEA and EAQUALS usually provide handbooks and manuals for use by all of the key organizational stakeholders entrusted with the process; these documents outline the standards, provide descriptions and discussions of what they entail, and detail the information the accrediting agency will require for verification of compliance, among other important aspects. In order to carry out the self-study, organizations should ensure

1. that all parties involved understand the standards and other requirements for accreditation;
2. that task forces, committees, and other work teams are prepared to fulfill their roles; and
3. that there be a clear timeline for regular meetings and reports and that the “self-study report” be assembled along the way.
   
   

At the end of the self-study process, the report is submitted for review by the accrediting agency (e.g., CEA), after which a date is set for the on-site inspection. The inspection can be an arduous experience but is a key factor in determining whether an organization obtains accreditation or not. The organization must prove that the contents of the self-study report accurately align with the work the program does and that they comply with the standards. The reviewers will contact the applying organization to work out the details of the visit in advance, including the schedule. Overall, the following should be kept in mind for the onsite review:

• Class observations: Offer a representative sample of faculty, including teachers of various degrees of experience and years of service.
• Interviews: Reviewers will want to meet stakeholders from as many constituent groups as possible, particularly teachers and language program administrators.
• Documentation: Information should be accessible in printed or electronic form.
• Stakeholders: Thoroughly orient all stakeholders about the organization’s vision, mission, values, curriculum, assessment system, and students. This requires effective training efforts during the self-study or self-assessment process.
• Standardization: All policies and procedures should be applied in a standardized manner, especially if there is more than one site under evaluation.
  
  

After the on-site visit, the review team will submit a detailed report on their findings, including discussions on the degree to which the organization is considered compliant with each standard and suggestions on what it should do when it is found to be partially compliant or noncompliant. The organization under review is given time to respond to the report. The response should include a plan for compliance when a standard is under question.

Potential Challenges

The first challenge for any program is making sure all stakeholders buy into the process from the very beginning. They must have a clear vision as to what the organization wishes to accomplish and why. Involving them in the decision-making is critical.

At Instituto Cultural Peruano Norteamericano (ICPNA), the binational center in Lima, Peru, the greatest challenge came with the CEA’s faculty standards, because they require that all teachers have credentials that reflect a formal education in the field. This was challenging for the institution because the reality in many EFL settings is that many, if not most, teachers often do not begin their English teaching careers with such a background. Rather they learn and develop into language teaching professionals over time. The general principal that guides the CEA’s requirements in this area is that teachers must demonstrate they are able to make informed decisions in the classroom that benefit student learning. Our argument was that even though many of our teachers did not have a degree in education, IMMERSE, our professional development and teacher training program, served as a legitimate alternative that could succeed in offering teachers the professional knowledge and understanding to meet the challenge set forth in the standards for faculty. In the end, our multimodal, ongoing program was determined sufficient for compliance as long as there was a clear commitment on our part to improve the number of teachers with or working on their formal degrees in the field; now, we have an agreement with a university that allows ICPNA teachers to pursue their degrees in education at a discount and on our premises every weekend. The number of teachers studying today has raised the percentage of faculty compliance significantly in a very short period of time; our goal is having 100% of our permanent faculty comply with this requirement in the medium- to long term.

Conclusion

Making the move toward accreditation represents a transcendental change for any organization. Therefore, key decision makers must make certain that the conditions are ideal and that the institution is ready to move forward, not only financially and logistically but also philosophically. Everyone must be willing to undertake a long and sometimes challenging process, but it is the process that makes it so fulfilling for all who contribution. 

To those who have already made the decision and those who will someday, I wish you the best of luck!

References

Commission on English Language Program Accreditation. (2014). About CEA. Retrieved from http://cea-accredit.org/about-cea

Evaluation and Accreditation of Quality in Language Services. (2014). Accreditation. Retrieved from http://eaquals.org/pages/7113