PARADIGM SHIFT FROM PROGRAM TO INSTITUTIONAL ACCREDITATION: THE

PHILIPPINE STATE INSTITUTIONS’ EXPERIENCE

Nilo E. Colinares, Ed.D.Consultant

Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities in the Philippines (AACCUP), Inc.

Presentation in Six Parts

I. Introduction (from Conceptualization to Concretization)

II. The Launch and the Hoped-For-Advantages

III. 2009: The Year of ImplementationIV. Possible Future DevelopmentV. Implications to Progressive ImplementationVI. Conclusion (from INQAAHE 2001 to INQAAHE

2009)

I. INTRODUCTIONA. The Conceptualization of

the Schema– INQAAHE Biennial

Conference 2001, Bangalore– Authority cum Accountability

in Accreditation– Dr. Manuel T Corpus, Founding President,

Executive Director, AACCUP

B. The Philippine HEIs Scenario

• 1,726 higher education institutions

• 203 (12%) public institutions, the AACCUP clientele

• 1,523 private or 88% of the total HEIs population

1. The Philippine Education Budget Vis-à-vis the Asian Countries

Malaysia • 6.2% of gross domestic product;

Thailand • 4.2 %Indonesia • 3.6%Japan • 3.5%Korea • 3.1%Philippines • 2.5%

C. The AACCUP Environment

Total Number of SUCs 110

Number of SUC Members 101 92%

•Members with Accreditation 95

•Members w/o Accreditation 6

Number of Non-Member SUCs

9 8%

Number of Local Colleges 2

1. Membership in AACCUP

2. The Rise of Program Accreditation1992 to Present

Year Number of Programs

Number of SUCs

1992 11 6

2000 132 39

2008 488 6311 6

132

39

488

63

0

100

200

300

400

500

1992 2000 2008

The Rise of Program Accreditation

Number of Programs Number of SUCs

4. Global Influences

Australian Universities Quality Agency (2003)

British Council Assistance (2002)

Paper at INQAAHE Conference (2001) Bangalore,India

Asian Development Bank Study (2000)

APQN-Sponsored Training of Accreditors forInstitutional Accreditation (2005)

World Bank Influence in East Timor Project (2008)

CPSC Influence (2005)

3. The 1,310 Programs (as of 2008)

Status (Level) Number of Programs

1. Candidate 3492. Level I Accredited 3363. Level II Reaccredited 3834. Qualified for Level III 1255. Level III Reaccredited 117

Total 1,310

5. Continuation of Accreditation by Program

It is focused

Basis is the grant of some benefits

Not appropriate in countries with many HEIs.

Relatively slow.

Limitations

Strength

6. Consistency in Pursuit of Institutional Accreditation2001 - Toward A Relevant Model of Quality

Assurance: Redesigning the Current System

2002 - Institutional Accreditation: A Shift to a more Relevant Model for SUCs

2003 - Institutional Accreditation: top Agenda Item

2004 - Institutional Accreditation: Past, Present and Trends

2005 - Go for Institutional Accreditation

consistent themes. . .

2005 - Go for Institutional Accreditation

2006 - Be Institutional, Go Global

2007 - Twenty Years of Accreditation: Trials, Tribulations and Triumph followed by a Seminar-Workshop on the preparation of Institutional Accreditation Evaluation Instruments

2008 - Institutional Accreditation: Enhancing the Quality of Institutions

2009 - Push forward the AACCUP drive for Inst. Accred.

II. The Launch and the Hoped-for Advantages

• In the 21st Annual National Conference of 2008, AACCUP launched the adoption of Institutional Accreditation amidst the cheers of participating SUCs, now partially convinced of the advantages that follow:

A. Usefulness and Relevance to Stakeholders1. the government, state-funded institutions,

SUCs; in legislative budgetary hearings2. students- claims for rights, privileges3. employers- referrals from institutions, not

individual programs4. aid-granting institutions, donors, foundations-

commitment and accountability demanded from recipient – the INSTITUTION, not from individual programs

B. More Accurate Indicator of Quality of Education1. Entry requirements

a. For a school to be qualified for institutional accreditation, at least 75% of its programs should be accredited

b. Unaccredited programs may be evaluated during the institutional accreditation visit.

C. More Appropriate for –

1. countries with many HEIs

2. more advanced educational systems

D. Faster

1. the institution concerned has had its programs already evaluated

2. the institution is taken as a whole with no more details assessed, having been taken care of during program accreditation

E. Encourages Institutions to Demonstrate -

1. continuous improvement in-a. all programs offeredb. services offeredc. activities undertaken andd. the whole system rather than just a

few pockets of entire unit

F. Enables Institutions to Achieve Recognition and Enhanced Status along-

1. General administration and services2. Instruction3. Research4. Extension5. Resource generation and management;

and to profit from the synergism of each.

G. Motivates institutions in their respective totality to aspire for and work towards global competitiveness

III. 2009: Year of Implementation

A. 22nd AACCUP Annual National Conference theme: Push Forward the 2009 Drive for Institutional Accreditation.– Review of dynamics-– Pre-accreditation

requirements, criteria, instruments,procedures

B. Pilot Survey Visit and Workshop

– The Conference will be followed by a hands-on experience in conducting a pilot accreditation survey visit. The pilot-testing of the new scheme will be conducted in one of the five SUCs which have submitted their intent t embrace institutional accreditation and volunteered to act as an academic “guinea pig”, for the new experiment. The visit will also serve as part of the workshop for the core group of institutional Accreditors.

1. The Strategy

1. Select and invite 50 participants starting with those already trained on institutional accreditation. They will form the core of AACCUP Institutional Accreditors.

2. Submit the workshop for APQN sponsorship or assistance in the form of engaging the services of 2 consultants and sponsoring 10 participants from among APQN members.

3. Seek the assistance of the British Council, the World Bank and the Columbo Plan Staff College for possible assistance in the form of speakers.

4. Enlist CHED technical and financial assistance.

The Strategy continued…

The exercise will focus AACCUP as the first accrediting agency in the Philippines to have fully implemented institutional accreditation asa unit of assessment in government and other institutions.

A select group of 50 accreditors and 10 foreign participants are expected to attend.

2. The Hoped-for Result

– With all activities successfully carried out, it is hoped that the transition from program to institutional accreditation among SUCs in the country, will prove to be a dynamic tool for the propagation of an effective, efficient and sustainable unit of assessment to be appreciated, and emulated by all accrediting agencies in the country.

IV. Possible Future Development

• As AACCUP goes about the initial steps in the new scheme, current events in both the national and regional academic zones of Asia, augur well for the progressive implementation of institutional accreditation, specifically, these are:

A. CHED’s IQUAME

– Institutional Quality Assurance through Monitoring and Evaluation (IQUAME) for-1. grant of “Autonomous and Deregulated Status for

private HEIs”2. inputs to CHED Policies, Standards and Guidelines

(PSG) for grant of University Status3. a supporting push towards AACCUP’s drive.Through IQUAME’s approach to institutional

monitoring and evaluation, AACCUP’s institutional accreditation drive for 2009, finds more relevance

and appropriateness in the HEI universe.

B. The Coordinating Council on Accreditation (CCA)

a. Task: to formulate a common set of standards, procedures and instruments for accreditation.

b. Composition: representatives from the five existing accrediting agencies.

c. Implications to AACCUP Drive.It is opined that if CHED will pursue a common set of standards, such commonality will find more meaning in institutional accreditation.

C. The ASEAN Quality Assurance Network (AQAN)

1. SEAMEO RIHED and Malaysian Quality Assurance (MQA) project of “Harmonization of Higher Education and Quality Assurance” with quality assurance as key element which resulted in the Kuala Lumpur Declaration to –

a. Share best practicesb. Develop an ASEAN QA

framework

c. Collaborate on capacity building

d. Facilitate recognition of qualifications and cross -border mobility

2. Relevance of to Institutional Accreditation to Kuala Lumpur Declaration. It is believed that the concretization of the Declaration would be more possible of fulfillment in a single-shot institutional accreditation schema, rather than in a multi-faceted program evaluation.

V. Implications to Progressive Implementation

• IQUAME: approach is complementary to program, but is concerned with the overall strategic operation of an institution in its entirety.

• AACCUP: Accreditation by program will continue but I.A. is the most appropriate in countries with many HEIs, like the Philippines.

1) Identical Approaches

A. IQUAME and AACCUP

2. Identical Criteria• IQUAMEevaluates

“Governance and Management”,

• “Support to Students”, “Management of Resources”.

• IQUAME looks into “Relations with Community”, “Quality Research and Teaching”

• AACCUP has the same indicators of Gov. and Mgt., Support to Students and Mgt. of Resources

• AACCUP similarly assesses “Extension, Consultancy and Linkages”, “Research” and “Teaching and Learning”.

3. Professional Partnership

B. The CCA Objective and Existing Common Standards…

1. The five accrediting agencies are currently following common set of standards such asa. “Levels of Accreditation”b.CHED recognition through federationc. validity/duration of levels of accreditation.

2. More commonality will ensue if they adopt Institutional Accreditation as unit of assessment.

C. AQAN’s Project

1. SEAMEO RIHED’s and MQA’s AQAN spells out among other roles, “sharing of best practices” in the Kuala Lumpur Declaration.

2. This will necessarily reveal that for countries with numerous HEIs, such as the US, Russia, India, Institutional Accreditation is the most practical unit of assessment to utilize.

1. The theme”New Approaches to Quality Assurance in the Changing World”,and the Sub-theme, “DifferentApproaches to QA and their impact on efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability”

D. This INQAAHE Conference 2009

2. Quality assurance bodies will present theories and practices. many of which will border on institutional accreditation

3. Presentations and Discussions will Enhance Chances for Success of AACCUP 2009 Drive

• The world-wide expositions on the scheme will surely enhance the chances for success of the recent adoption and subsequent implementation of the complementary unit of assessment by the state institutions of the Philippines through the AACCUP.

VI. Conclusion

• What began for AACCUP as an INQAAHE-inspired/motivated concept in 2001, has materialized,has become concrete, more enriched and flourished,

From INQAAHE 2001 to…

to INQAAHE 2009

• ….again, through the sharing of experiences, of world-wide best practices in quality assurance strategies, in this INQAAHE 2009 assembly of world quality assurance leaders, the world’s who’s who in quality education advocacies