I’m glad you’re joining me once more. Today, we’ll examine another Standard often cited by ARC-PA. Our last few blogs looked at citations for Standard A1.07, which focuses on the supervision and support of your program’s sponsoring institution. Now, we move on to Standard A2.09, particularly A2.09d, which demands similar accountability from the program director. 

The standard's gist is that a program director needs to be knowledgeable and responsible for continuous programmatic review and analysis. Perhaps more importantly, the program director must be able to describe their knowledge and responsibility adequately during a site visit interview. No matter how skilled program directors may be, those who cannot “talk the talk” of ARC-PA when they are called upon during a site review risk being cited for failing to demonstrate what the Standards require. 

The quality of the SSR is also a consideration, but as I will show you, citation examples seem to heavily depend on what happens during the site visit. Based on the language of the citations I will share, we’ll show that there definitely seems to be an emphasis on the actual process during the site visit.

Breaking down A2.09d

13 out of 98 programs between March 2022 and June 2023 received a citation for standard A2.09d.

The program directors who go through this will usually receive other citations in the A2.09 category, leading also to an A2.09d citation. 

A2.09d expects the following: 

1. That a program director sufficiently demonstrates compliance with standard A2.09d through preparation and evidence of assessment results.

2. That the program demonstrates compliance with standard A2.09d through leadership development of the program director and the incorporation of institutional support.

Nuances of Compliance A2.09d

1. The citation often describes that the program does not demonstrate or articulate critical analysis and knowledge of programmatic assessment during the site visit.

2. The Commission will often add this citation automatically if there are numerous citations regarding the C1.01-C1.03 standards.

3. The citation seems to be based on the director’s perceived knowledge of the assessment process and the ability to articulate the conclusions in the SSR. 

Why is this citation so common?

Programmatic assessment may not have been a predominant component of every program director’s workload in the past. In my own career, I spent a lot of time as the head of assessment, but not all program directors have done so. Also, a program director’s role has expanded over the past decade. Many directors are also assistant deans and have other responsibilities, so it’s hard for them to be involved in everything. 

Thus, if you are a program director and assessment simply has not been part of your workload in the past, you understandably are not engaged with the process. The site visit committee now expects you to have engaged and intuitive answers about program assessment. 

Also, there may have been a disconnect between the program director’s knowledge of assessment and the manner in which this is communicated during the site visit. As I said above, a program director may have ample knowledge. Yet during the dynamics of a Q&A session, this knowledge is not communicated successfully. 

Finally, assessment training continues to be a critical need for leadership development. PAEA does a fairly good job of providing this, and ARC-PA does provide some workshops, but assessment training is lacking overall. As ARC-PA’s Standards evolved, the critical emphasis on assessment means that everyone needs to become a part of the process, if only to describe how assessment is conducted in their program.  

Assessment as a construct should be part of the development of leadership and leadership teams, and it needs to be understood in the terms we have discussed in this blog series. Time and again, we’ve seen how the inability to explain assessment processes causes citations from your lecturers all the way to your sponsoring institution’s administration.

Where do we get tripped up?

“Tell us about your assessment process,” says the interviewer.

Often the problem is that we begin by responding with facts. “We did this. We did that.” But we neglect to describe a process.

A good place to start is by discussing all the data gathered for your program’s SSR and where it goes. Then, trace forward. Remember, this part is not about what your data specifically says, but about how your data is used and examined to improve your program. 

Don’t tell them “what,” rather tell them “how.”

You should be able to explain your process for determining answers to questions like these:

• How do you know when an area needs improvement? 

• How do you use the data to detect a weakness or a strength?

• How do you know when an action plan is needed? 

If you can talk through this process to arrive at answers to such questions, it will demonstrate your knowledge of the assessment process.

In my next blog…

We’ll examine specific examples of A2.09d citations to determine what the committee is looking for in a program director’s response and understanding. Then, I will share my thoughts on the new role that program directors play in the assessment process.