Self-Study/NEASC Reaccreditation

Early Reflections on the Self-Study Process
(October 19, 1998)

As most of us are new to the process of NEASC reaccreditation, I thought it might be helpful, as a point of departure, to share some general ideas that the subcommittees might consider in their deliberations. These ideas incorporate both the "philosophy" undergirding the self-study process and a list of "things to do" for each of the subcommittees. In the final analysis, I expect the process to be a fluid one where we will end up learning much, not only about the College, but the self-study process itself. If you have any ideas or suggestions about the role of the subcommittees, please feel free to contact members of the steering committee or simply E-mail a note to the full committee.

While the approach taken by each subcommittee will share much in common, differences will arise. Perhaps the most significant difference is that some subcommittees will concentrate on the work of a particular area of the College, "student services" or "physical resources" for example, while the focus of other subcommittees will be campus-wide, as in the case of "integrity" or "public disclosure."

At the onset, each subcommittee should become familiar with the specific standards assigned. Each standard must be addressed. Subcommittee members should think carefully about what each standard means and what types of information or statistical data will be needed to prove to NEASC that we are in compliance. The subcommittees will also need to identify what programs or planning committees are in the best position to provide the information necessary to describe and assess the current status of the College in the areas contained by the standards. To the extent possible, the self-study committee should work within the existing structure of the College’s operations, planning, and evaluation processes. The steering committee, with the help of the full self-study committee, will coordinate the work of the subcommittees and provide useful cross-references between groups. Among other things, we must guard against redundancy when we request information from the existing programs and planning committees.

If we are not minimally in compliance, the College will need to consider strategies to respond to whatever shortcomings are uncovered in the self-study process. Self-awareness should be our ultimate goal; this can only come about through a deliberative process that is honest, open, inquisitive, and comprehensive. Keep in mind that NEASC’s reaccreditation process is more formative or developmental than summative. It is designed to help an institution become more effective, not to deny it reaccreditation.

At times, the information or statistical data needed to validate whether Saint Michael’s is in compliance with a standard will not be available from any one planning committee or program. When a subcommittee uncovers problems of this sort, the full self-study committee should be appraised and appropriate action taken. In part, our proposed campus-wide survey will serve as one vehicle to furnish some of the missing information. The institutional researcher will also be of help in this area.

As I see it, it is not the job of the subcommittees to undertake an independent assessment of the institutional components which are related to the standards in question. We neither have the expertise nor time to undertake such a task. It would also be counterproductive. Rather, the subcommittees should work through the College’s existing committee and program structures. It is the job of these "units" to assess their own work and achievements against the appropriate standards. We will inform the relevant units about what we expect from them, the time-line, and the need for honest reflection and critical self-examination. The subcommittees should act as a resource to help the units understand the meaning of the standards and perhaps guide them in their own self-appraisals. At some point, the subcommittees in concert with the full self-study committee will need to evaluate whether the self-appraisals are comprehensive, provide convincing evidence to support assertions, and identify strategies to enhance institutional strengths and remedy problematic areas.

There will be much overlap in what we expect from each of the "units." NEASC relies extensively on an approach that emphasizes description (what are we doing), appraisal (how well are we doing), and projections (how can we do better).(1) Within this context, two transcendent themes emerge in NEASC’s discussions and literature. The first is that whatever we do at Saint Michael’s should be mission driven. NEASC cares little about the nature of the mission, assuming that it is appropriate for an educational institution, and more about how well it is implemented. The second overriding concern of NEASC is institutional effectiveness; the capacity of an institution to assess, verify, and enhance the fulfillment of its mission and purposes, giving primary focus to the attainment of its educational objectives. In preparing the final self-study report, these considerations must be clear and formally addressed and be based upon information gathered and distilled from the community at large. Within the context of description, appraisal, and projection, each unit in its self-appraisals will need to address, at minimum, the following issues and questions.

The relationship between the department or unit’s goals and objectives and the College’s mission and purposes.

A description of the unit or department which includes some historical information as well as a comprehensive picture of its current status.

A discussion of the unit’s strengths and weaknesses. This might include some reflection on the external and internal constraints that challenge the unit to achieve as much as it might like.

How does the unit assess its own performance? Is the unit achieving its goals and objectives? Is the evidence presented credible, convincing, and consistent? We must be able to verify everything we say.

Where does the unit or program hope to be in the future? Are there clearly articulated and convincing strategies to respond to deficiencies and enhance strengths?

When the individual self-study reports arrive, the subcommittees should begin clarifying and distilling the reports, making sure that the units have responded to the relevant standards. If we see flaws or deficiencies, we will need to work with the appropriate vice-presidents and the individual units to respond to our concerns. This will require great sensitivity, an understanding of the skills and background of those preparing the documents, and the conditions shaping their work.

The strengths and disadvantages of our subcommittee process will become clearer as we proceed. In a sense, we will all be "learning by doing." It is important for the subcommittees to take minutes and to inform the full group of any problems that arise. I have asked Peggy Maki, Associate Director of NEASC, to come to SMC in the next few weeks to discuss any questions you might have about the self-study process and the work associated with your subcommittees. This should be an ideal time as you’ll have had an opportunity, perhaps for the first time, to seriously grapple with the individuals standards. We will plan for a evening meeting, with dinner included, starting around 6:00 and ending close to 9:00. Please let me know whether there is a specific night during a typical week when you are not available.

As always, thanks for your help and attention and please let me or other members of the steering committee know what issues still need clarification or whether the approach suggested above is either unworkable or inefficient.

1. Last week's NEASC conference provided a useful and simplified example of this approach.  Description: Planning is determined by the administration.  Appraisal: The present planning process does not include a broad-based representation.  Projection: By the fall of 1998, we will create a planning committee consisting of broad-based representation. [return]

|| Self-Study Homepage || Saint Michael's Homepage ||

Questions or comments relating to Accreditation should be directed to:
Dr. Herbert Kessel hkessel@smcvt.edu
last revised: May 11, 2000