Continuous Improvement: AACSB 2008 Accreditation Standards & Process Update APLG/FSA 2008 Annual Seminar Jerry Trapnell, Exec VP & Chief Accreditation Officer, AACSB

2 Overview AACSB International mission and status of the Accreditation Council Pertinent data 2008 Process and Standards Interpretations update 2008 Process and Standards Interpretations update Discussion and questions

Mission Statement AACSB International advances quality management education worldwide through accreditation and thought leadership

AACSB Accreditation Seal and Logo

5 AACSB International Accreditation Council Business Schools Business Schools 554 members554 members 459 US and 95 OUS459 US and 95 OUS 31 countries31 countries Accounting Accreditation Accounting Accreditation 169 schools169 schools 164 US and 5 OUS164 US and 5 OUS 5 countries 5 countries

6 Trends in AQ/PQ Faculty Percentage of AQ and PQ Faculty Self-Reported via BSQ #Schools_AQ__PQ_ %22.0% %22.1% % 24.0% %28.1% %30.3% Source. AACSB BSQ (data is self-reported). Note: and data include significant OUS participation for first time. US-only data for are 65.3% AQ and 26.7% PQ and for % AQ and 28.4% PQ, respectively.

7 Some statistics from past 5 yrs: % of business maintenance reviews ending in 6 th yr. review:19% % of acct maintenance reviews ending in 6 th yr. review21%

Process Updates

9 Policy adopted on time frame to re-enter accreditation process following withdrawal, denial, or revocation of accreditation: Withdrawal at pre-accreditation or initial accreditation stage: minimum 1 year or longer, committee determines Withdrawal at pre-accreditation or initial accreditation stage: minimum 1 year or longer, committee determines Denial: 3 year minimum Denial: 3 year minimum Revocation: 3 year minimum Revocation: 3 year minimum Voluntary relinquishment: 1 year minimum Voluntary relinquishment: 1 year minimum

10 Substantive Change Policy: Governs accreditation actions relative to events that may impact mission achievement, degree programs offered, resources, participants, etc. Examples of substantive changes: mergers/acquisitions, significant budget reductions, reorganizations, etc.

11 Substantive Change Policy Contd: Non-substantive changes include routine strategic management decision such as new degree programs, curricula revisions, internal reorganizations not affecting mission resources, participants, etc. Early contact with AACSB Chief Accreditation Officer is encouraged

12 Substantive Change Policy Contd-Key Principles: AACSB accreditation can not be acquired and can only be granted through an accreditation review Goal is to protect the integrity and value of AACSB accreditation

13 Substantive Change Policy Contd: Reporting requirement: 90 days following consummation of the event. Earlier notification is encouraged. AACSB action determined by appropriate committee (i.e. PAC, IAC, AAC, or MAC) Reporting should describe event and its impact on mission, resources, participants, degree programs, and AoL

14 Substantive Change Policy Contd: Possible decisions: 1. Accelerate maintenance review 2. Delay pre- or initial accreditation process with new reporting 3. Special reporting with no change in schedule 4. Suspension or discontinuation of accreditation process for pre- or initial accreditation schools Control of public statements included Appeal processes included

15 Program Exclusion Requests following initial maintenance reviews: Program exclusion requests for maintenance reviews subsequent to initial one will only need to include changes or new programs since the first maintenance review

16 Standards Updates

17 Eligibility Criteria C Revised opening paragraph of Some Clarifying Examples regarding reviews of joint, franchised, or exchange degree programs associated with accredited business schools and accounting programs:

18 Eligibility Criteria C Contd: Reviews will address mission appropriateness, students served, admission criteria, deployment of sufficient and qualified faculty by all partner institutions, and AoL for entire program including components delivered by partner schools Reviews will address mission appropriateness, students served, admission criteria, deployment of sufficient and qualified faculty by all partner institutions, and AoL for entire program including components delivered by partner schools If joint program is not a degree program of the accredited school, focus is on resource sufficiency If joint program is not a degree program of the accredited school, focus is on resource sufficiency

19 Standard 2-Mission Appropriateness: Professional Judgment in Accreditation Reviews Specifies peer review team focus on mission appropriateness will include the process for developing the mission and the extent to which school is achieving high quality and continuous improvement in accordance with mission Specifies peer review team focus on mission appropriateness will include the process for developing the mission and the extent to which school is achieving high quality and continuous improvement in accordance with mission Added to Basis for Judgment: Stresses mission appropriateness emphasizes achievement of high quality in each degree program Stresses mission appropriateness emphasizes achievement of high quality in each degree program

20 Standard 10 (Faculty Qualifications) Basis for Judgment regarding criteria for AQ/PQ Status Criteria for granting and for maintaining academic or professional qualifications for deans, associate deans, department heads, etc. may reflect these important administrative roles Criteria for granting and for maintaining academic or professional qualifications for deans, associate deans, department heads, etc. may reflect these important administrative roles

21 Standards 9 (Faculty Sufficiency) and 10 (Faculty Qualifications) regarding Business Communications (BC) Faculty in Business Schools Add to AQ and PQ white papers as FAQ Add to AQ and PQ white papers as FAQ Reaffirm all faculty in the business school supporting business programs should be held accountable for their performance Reaffirm all faculty in the business school supporting business programs should be held accountable for their performance School may include or exclude business communication faculty for Std. 9 and 10 purposes. Clear disclosure is important School may include or exclude business communication faculty for Std. 9 and 10 purposes. Clear disclosure is important BC faculty not excluded if teaching other business subjects BC faculty not excluded if teaching other business subjects AoL expected if communications skills are selected as learning goal to be assessed AoL expected if communications skills are selected as learning goal to be assessed

22 Standard 10 (Faculty Qualifications) Clarification regarding Deployment of Qualified Faculty Added location to two places that should have been included last year when the term programs, disciplines, and locations was adopted Added location to two places that should have been included last year when the term programs, disciplines, and locations was adopted

23 Standard 20-(Masters Educational Level) Basis for Judgment Deletes an example related to French Grande Ecoles that no longer applies due to changes in French educational system Deletes an example related to French Grande Ecoles that no longer applies due to changes in French educational system

24 Standard 10: Standard 20 (Masters Educational Level) Basis for Judgment Addition Normally, the majority of learning (credit hours, contact hours, or other metric) counted toward degree fulfillment is earned in classes reserved primarily for graduate students.

25 Standard 17 (Undergraduate Educational Level) and Standard 20 ( Masters Educational Level) Addition to Basis for Judgment The school defines and broadly disseminates its policies for evaluating, awarding, and accepting transfer credits/courses from other institutions consistent with its mission and degree programs. These policies should ensure that the academic work accepted from other institutions is comparable to the schools own degree programs. The school defines and broadly disseminates its policies for evaluating, awarding, and accepting transfer credits/courses from other institutions consistent with its mission and degree programs. These policies should ensure that the academic work accepted from other institutions is comparable to the schools own degree programs.

26 Learning Goals for Accredited Accounting Programs: Clarifies in Standards 39, 41, and 42 under Basis for Judgment that learning goals in accounting knowledge and skill areas must be included in AoL program

27 Accounting Standard 36 regarding recent relevant experience for faculty Basis for Judgment revised to expand activities that reflect recent relevant experience to include: 1. Significant participation in professional associations 2. Service on committees or boards of professional associations or licensing boards 3. Participation in professional events that focus on practice 4. Other activities that place faculty in direct contact with accounting practitioners

28 Standard 42-Specialized Masters Programs in Accounting Clarifies that Masters of Taxation programs offered by the accounting unit are included in accounting accreditation reviews Clarifies that Masters of Taxation programs offered by the accounting unit are included in accounting accreditation reviews Allows significant course work in taxation Allows significant course work in taxation

29 Other accreditation activities: AQ and PQ white papers available Value of accreditation campaign continues Peer review team training is expanding Expanded deployment of new deans and accounting chairs on peer review teams Monitoring DOE activities on accreditation relative to the Spellings Commission and similar activities around the world Enhanced differentiation of member and accredited institutions Working to gain enhanced recognition of AACSB in appropriate countries AoL white paper issued in the fall

30 Impact of Research Report

31 Key Principles: Critical for business schools and accounting programs to continuously enhance value and visibility of scholarship and research Consistent with AACSB accreditation philosophy

32 Critical issues: Research measures too focused on inputs (faculty time, etc.) rather than value of outcomes Heaviest focus is on discipline-based scholarship at expense of contributions to practice and pedagogical development Relationship between research and teaching are not well understood

33 Critical Issues Contd: Inadequate channels for translating academic research to impact practice Limited opportunity to promote continuous interaction among faculty and practicing managers on questions of relevance and research needs

34 Recommendations: Extend and augment accreditation guidelines to require schools to demonstrate impact of faculty intellectual contributions on targeted audiences Create incentives for greater diversity in institutional missions and faculty intellectual contributions Support inquiry into linkage between scholarly inquiry and education in degree and non-degree programs

35 Recommendations Contd: Develop AACSB awards program to recognize high-impact research by faculty Strengthen interaction between academics and practicing managers in production of knowledge in areas of greatest interest Study and recommend to journal community activities designed to highlight the impact of faculty research Disseminate information on best practices linking academic research and practice

36 Some important perspectives: Any impact on accreditation standards must be vetted through Accreditation Quality Committee and, if necessary, the Accreditation Council Task Force does not suggest impact must be demonstrated by all faculty nor is impact a requirement for AQ/PQ status

37 Perspectives Contd: Task Force assumes positive relationship between research and teaching, but recommends more investigation of the issue Task Force is well aware of difficulties of implementing Recommendation 1 related to measurement of impact, burden to schools, and education, training and advocacy related to the recommendation Some pilot efforts may be undertaken voluntarily

38 Questions and Discussion

39