Standard A Citation Language

Thank you for joining me again! We’re going through the list of the most commonly cited ARC-PA Standards. As you may recall, we’ve spent the last two blogs reviewing what Standards A1.02a and A1.07 require and why they are the source of so many citations, so examining the citations themselves next. In today’s blog, we’ll look at the language used by ARC-PA in these citations to clarify where programs fall short when providing evidence of support from their sponsoring institution.

A1.02a Typical Citation

This ARC-PA citation’s language demonstrates something I mentioned in my last blog: that citations issued throughout the SSR can result in an A1.02a citation because that implies the sponsoring institution shows insufficient oversight. As in all examples, the language in red deserves particular attention.

“Comments: The self-study report (SSR) submitted in the application and reviewed at the site visit, included incomplete data collection and evidence of documented critical analysis with application of results leading to conclusions that allowed the program to identify strengths, areas needing improvement, or to develop action plans. There was no evidence that the sponsoring institution had supported the program with the resources necessary to incorporate the feedback provided to the sponsoring institution and program…due to the multiple deficiencies within the submitted SSR.”

“Comments: At the time of the site visit, both the Dean and the Provost stated they supported the faculty in program assessment. However, the program did not demonstrate the implementation of a rigorous and ongoing assessment process despite the institution’s assurances of support of the program…The sponsoring institution did not demonstrate sufficient responsibility for supporting program faculty in program assessment.”

“Findings: The sponsoring institution did not provide sufficient support to the faculty for program assessment. Comments: At the time of the site visit, the sponsoring institution stated that if the program asked for assistance from the institution, it was provided to them through the institution’s Accreditation Specialist, who had reviewed the reports due to the ARC-PA and submission of the modified self-study report (mSSR)...However, the lack of institutional oversight…is evident in the inability of the program to accurately and succinctly document evidence of the implementation of its ongoing self-assessment process.” 

A1.07 Typical Citations

Standard A1.07 deals with meeting the staffing needs of a program. As you’ll see, the commission is serious about supporting documentation for any assertion that a program is understaffed.

“Comments: At the time of the site visit, discussion indicated that… teaching loads of principal faculty, and national comparison data related to student-to -faculty ratios (SFR) the program was above the comparison SFR data. The program requested an additional 1.0 FTE principal faculty and 1.0 FTE staff (data analyst position). Discussions with institutional officials indicated approval of the staff position to be available immediately and the principal faculty position approved for next academic year, but no documentation of either position was provided.”

“In its response to observations, the program stated both positions requested had been approved with supporting documents from the Provost/Vice-President for Academic Affairs: the staff position to be hired September 2022, and the faculty position to be hired September 2023. The response did not explain the year delay in the hiring of the principal faculty member or how the institution would provide sufficient faculty in the interim. At the time of the commission meeting, review of the program’s portal noted an additional staff member however, there was no associated FTE listed.” For this example, I know this program’s difficulty was simply in recruitment,  but there wasn’t enough communication or evidence.

“Meeting minutes, annual faculty and staff surveys, and discussions with program faculty and staff indicated that the institution officials were unresponsive to repeated requests for assistance in filling the eliminated 0.5 FTE administrative assistant and an additional 1.0 FTE principal faculty position. The faculty stated they had no time for assessment activities due to a lack of faculty. Additionally, 1.0 FTE principal faculty was expected to retire in the near future. The institutional officials indicated a new principal faculty would be hired to provide overlap between the retiring principal faculty for the upcoming AY 2024, but there was no documentation to support the plan.” In this scenario, the program concluded that the number of principal faculty and staff needed to increase. At the time of the site visit, program meeting minutes reflected repeating requests. Meeting minutes, annual surveys, etc., all indicated that the institutional systems were unresponsive. 

Next week…

We have covered all the bases of Standard A citations; now, let’s put our knowledge to work. We will discuss leveraging this information to approach your sponsoring institution for staffing and assessment purposes. I’ll share how to use Standard A effectively to bring your sponsoring institution in line with your program’s best interests.