This week, I want to focus on a pair of A Standards that significantly impact accreditation and program operation. Standard A2.09 and A1.02 are notorious multipliers because they often go hand in hand and almost inevitably lead to repeated citations in the C Standards I discussed last week. Citations under these Standards can have far-reaching and unfortunate results.

A2.09 Language

The program director must be knowledgeable about and responsible for:

1. Program organization

2. Program administration

3. Fiscal management of the program

4. Continuous programmatic review and analysis

5. Program planning

6. Program development

7. Completion of ARC-PA required documents; and

8. Adherence to the Standards and ARC-PA policies

This particular Standard bothers me the most because hardworking, competent program directors are often hit with it, sometimes with tragic results: I’m talking about something as serious as good people being fired.

This finding is most commonly seen under subsection (d): “The program director did not demonstrate knowledge about continued programmatic review and analysis.”  This actually relates to how well the director can answer the site visitors’ questions about the SSR.

This can be very detrimental to the program. To put it plainly, a competent program director can suffer consequences because they do not express their knowledge of the program’s self-assessment process in terms acceptable to the site visitors during the interview process. The key to making these interviews as effective as possible is having a very clean SSR and clear self-study process; the program director must be well-informed and highly prepared for the site visit. 

A2.09 Caveats for Success

• Citations directed to program directors are often tied to standard A1.02. The two go together virtually every time.

• A lack of understanding on the part of senior administration can result in devastating outcomes.

• This underscores the importance of program director mentoring. 

• For more information, see my blogs published November 6, 13 and 18, 2024.

I’m optimistic that the 6th Edition Standards will be less unforgiving. However, meeting these criteria continues to be a major challenge for many programs.

A1.02 Language

Standard A1.02 states, “The sponsoring institution is responsible for: a) supporting the planning by program faculty of curriculum design, course selection, and program assessment.” We take particular note of substandard (a) because I’ve found that even with ample evidence that the institution supports the PA program, a lack of documentation, including meeting minutes, can result in citations.

Reasons cited for non-compliance with this Standard seem more varied than others; such a citation has roots in many causes. It can stem from your program’s lack of recordkeeping or from the actual insufficient performance of your sponsoring institution’s administration. If ARC-PA sees that your SSR is already troubled by numerous citations, this citation can be issued post-visit by the Commission itself. They deduce that an SSR riddled with citations reflects a lack of oversight.

A1.02a Caveats for Success

• Create a process for the senior administration to review and approve accreditation documents before submission. The protocol should pass through senior administration and your program’s committees. 

• Generate meeting notes between the program director and senior administration discussions. A program may lack minutes verifying that institutional officials were involved in reviewing the application or the program’s assessment process. 

• Ensure that institutional assessment personnel attend your assessment meetings - and be sure the minutes reflect it! As is the case with many other common citations, if you don’t have minutes to verify that your program has interfaced with institutional officials, even if they have been actively involved with reviewing the application and the assessment process, you are deemed not to be in compliance. ARC-PA demands documentation.

• Create a paper trail and documentation of the budget related to assessment matters.

• For more information, see my blogs published October 8, 16, 22, and 29, 2024. I recommend these especially if actual institutional “neglect” is the issue, because I include several helpful ideas for tackling this problem.

In our next blog…

With the multipliers hopefully tamed, we’ll move on. Next, I’ll present my advice for understanding and improving results on the four B Standards that made the top ten list. Join me then!