1. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE BOLOGNA PROCESS* ACE ANNUAL MEETING FEBRUARY 9, 2009 JEAN A. MORSE, PRESIDENT MIDDLE STATES COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION WWW.MSCHE.ORG *ALL U.S. ACCREDITATION EXAMPLES ARE FROM MSCHE

2. THREE ISSUES #1 – Fit U.S. ? DO WE ALREADY HAVE AN INFORMAL SYSTEM?DO WE ALREADY HAVE AN INFORMAL SYSTEM? HOW ARE U.S. GOALS DEFINED NOW?HOW ARE U.S. GOALS DEFINED NOW? HOW DO WE RETAIN MOMENTUM IN ADVANCEMENTS IN ASSESSMENT?HOW DO WE RETAIN MOMENTUM IN ADVANCEMENTS IN ASSESSMENT? HOW DO WE PRESERVE DIVERSITY?HOW DO WE PRESERVE DIVERSITY?

3. HOW USEFUL IS QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK?HOW USEFUL IS QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK? WILL FACULTY BE ABLE TO CREATE AND APPLY PROGRAM GOALS?WILL FACULTY BE ABLE TO CREATE AND APPLY PROGRAM GOALS? WILL INSTITUTIONS BE ABLE TO PRODUCE DIPLOMA SUPPLEMENT?WILL INSTITUTIONS BE ABLE TO PRODUCE DIPLOMA SUPPLEMENT? #2: IS BOLOGNA PRACTICAL TO APPLY?

4. IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR STATES TO SUGGEST LEARNING GOALS?IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR STATES TO SUGGEST LEARNING GOALS? WOULD 50 STATES WORK TOGETHER?WOULD 50 STATES WORK TOGETHER? WOULD PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS FOLLOW STATE PROPOSALS?WOULD PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS FOLLOW STATE PROPOSALS? WHAT ARE BETTER ALTERNATIVES?WHAT ARE BETTER ALTERNATIVES? #3: HOW COULD BOLOGNA BEST BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE U.S.?

5. COMMON GOALS : U.S. AND EUROPE ASSURE LEVEL OF LEARNING ASSURE LEVEL OF LEARNING ASSESS BASED ON OUTCOMES, NOT INPUTS OR PROCESSES ASSESS BASED ON OUTCOMES, NOT INPUTS OR PROCESSES AVOID STANDARDIZED TESTS AVOID STANDARDIZED TESTS PROMOTE TRANSFER ACROSS U.S. AND INTERNATIONALLY PROMOTE TRANSFER ACROSS U.S. AND INTERNATIONALLY

6. U.S. SYSTEM – KEY DIFFERNCES LESS SPECIALIZATION AT UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL LESS SPECIALIZATION AT UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIRED – INCLUDES AND EXCEEDS BASIC BOLOGNA SKILLS GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIRED – INCLUDES AND EXCEEDS BASIC BOLOGNA SKILLS DIFFERENT DEGREE LENGTHS DIFFERENT DEGREE LENGTHS

7. GENERAL EDUCATION SCIENTIFIC AND QUANTITATIVE REASONING SCIENTIFIC AND QUANTITATIVE REASONING COMMUNICATION: ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: ORAL AND WRITTEN CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND REASONING CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND REASONING TECHNOLOGICAL COMPETENCY TECHNOLOGICAL COMPETENCY

8. U.S. SYSTEM: QUALITY ASSURANCE REGIONAL ACCREDITORS ASSURE INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY OF MOST U.S. DEGREE-GRANTING INSTITUTIONS PRIVATE, NON-GOVERNMENTAL FUNDING LINKFUNDING LINK PROFESSIONAL ACCREDITORS PROFESSIONAL ACCREDITORS NATIONAL ACCREDITORS NATIONAL ACCREDITORS

9. OTHER QUALITY ASSURANCE INQAAHE – GUIDELINES FOR GOOD PRACTICE INQAAHE – GUIDELINES FOR GOOD PRACTICE ENQA – HEIs, QAAs, EQAS ENQA – HEIs, QAAs, EQAS REGIONAL GROUPS OF EQAs REGIONAL GROUPS OF EQAs INTERNATIONAL ACCREDITORS INTERNATIONAL ACCREDITORS U.S. ACCREDITATION ABROAD U.S. ACCREDITATION ABROAD ARTICULATION AGREEMENTS ARTICULATION AGREEMENTS ACE, AACRAO ACE, AACRAO

10. FOUR STEP ASSESSMENT CYCLE 2. Programs, services, and initiatives 1. Goals 4. Using Results 3. Assessment/ Evaluation

11. LEARNING: ACCREDITATION REQUIREMENTS LIKE BOLOGNA: CLEARLY ARTICULATED WRITTEN STATEMENTS, EXPRESSED IN OBSERVABLE TERMS, OF KEY LEARNING OUTCOMES: KNOWLEDGE, SKILL, AND COMPETENCIES

12. ACCREDITATION: STUDENT LEARNING BOTH GOALS AND ASSESSMENT for INSTITUTIONAL, PROGRAM, COURSE, CO- CURRICULAR, AND GENERAL ED. BOTH GOALS AND ASSESSMENT for INSTITUTIONAL, PROGRAM, COURSE, CO- CURRICULAR, AND GENERAL ED. SELECTED BY INSTITUTION, JUDGED BY ACCREDITORS SELECTED BY INSTITUTION, JUDGED BY ACCREDITORS INTEGRATED ACROSS LEVELS INTEGRATED ACROSS LEVELS RESULTS USED FOR IMPROVEMENT RESULTS USED FOR IMPROVEMENT ADDRESSES ADULT/EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING, TRANSFER ADDRESSES ADULT/EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING, TRANSFER

13. RESOURCES: MIDDLE STATES CHARACTERISTICS OF EXCELLENCE (Standards 7 and 14) CHARACTERISTICS OF EXCELLENCE (Standards 7 and 14) STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT: OPTIONS AND RESOURCES STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT: OPTIONS AND RESOURCES ASSESSING STUDENT LEARNING AND INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS: UNDERSTANDING MIDDLE STATES EXPECTATIONS ASSESSING STUDENT LEARNING AND INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS: UNDERSTANDING MIDDLE STATES EXPECTATIONS

14. U.S. EXPERIENCE 65% OF ALL INSTITUTIONS FOLLOWED UP 65% OF ALL INSTITUTIONS FOLLOWED UP 64% FOR STUDENT LEARNING64% FOR STUDENT LEARNING 47% FOR INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS47% FOR INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS LOW NUMBER COMPLETE CYCLE OF ASSESSMENT/IMPROVEMENT LOW NUMBER COMPLETE CYCLE OF ASSESSMENT/IMPROVEMENT CONFUSION RE GOALS AND ASSESSMENT CONFUSION RE GOALS AND ASSESSMENT COMPARABILITY ISSUE OPEN COMPARABILITY ISSUE OPEN

15. STUDENT LEARNING: CONCLUSIONS REQUIREMENTS EXIST FOR TYPE OF GEN ED SKILLS INCLUDED IN BOLOGNA REQUIREMENTS EXIST FOR TYPE OF GEN ED SKILLS INCLUDED IN BOLOGNA REQUIREMENTS EXIST FOR LEARNING GOALS REQUIREMENTS EXIST FOR LEARNING GOALS LEVEL OF LEARNING IS REVIEWED LEVEL OF LEARNING IS REVIEWED IMPLEMENTATION IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR FACULTY AND INSTITUTIONS IMPLEMENTATION IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR FACULTY AND INSTITUTIONS MORE COMPLEXITY MAY LEAD TO MORE CONFUSIONMORE COMPLEXITY MAY LEAD TO MORE CONFUSION

16. ISSUE #2: BOLOGNA QUALIFICATION FRAMEWORK REALISTIC? 5 MODELS AMONG 7 COUNTRIES IN EUROPE REALISTIC? 5 MODELS AMONG 7 COUNTRIES IN EUROPE HOW USEFUL IS THIS FOR TRANSFER/ COMPARABILITY?HOW USEFUL IS THIS FOR TRANSFER/ COMPARABILITY? COMPLEX: SEPARATE DEFINITIONS AT EACH DEGREE LEVEL FOR KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, COMPETENCE COMPLEX: SEPARATE DEFINITIONS AT EACH DEGREE LEVEL FOR KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, COMPETENCE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS DEFINE THESE DIFFERENTLYDIFFERENT SYSTEMS DEFINE THESE DIFFERENTLY

17. BOLOGNA QUALIFICATION FRAMEWORK SKILLS AT 3 TOP LEVELS: (ABRIDGED) LEVEL 6 : DEMONSTRATE MASTERY AND INNOVATION TO SOLVE COMPLEX AND UNPREDICTABLE PROBLEMS IN SPECIALIZED FIELD LEVEL 7 : SPECIALIZED PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS REQUIRED IN RESEARCH AND IINNOVATON TO DEVELOP AND INTEGRATE NEW KNOWLEDGE LEVEL 8 : MOST ADVANCED, INCLUDING SYNTHESIS AND EVALUATION, TO SOLVE CRITICAL PROBLEMS IN RESEACH/INNOVATION AND EXTEND KNOWLEDGE

18. SEVERAL SUBJECT LEVEL DEFINITIONS GENERIC COMPETENCIES AT FRAMEWORK LEVEL EXPRESSED IN MORE DETAIL FOR SUBJECT GENERIC COMPETENCIES AT FRAMEWORK LEVEL EXPRESSED IN MORE DETAIL FOR SUBJECT THERE ARE GRADATIONS WITHIN EACH DEGREE LEVEL (BASIC, INTERMEDIATE, ADVANCED, SPECIALIZED) TO BE DEFINED THERE ARE GRADATIONS WITHIN EACH DEGREE LEVEL (BASIC, INTERMEDIATE, ADVANCED, SPECIALIZED) TO BE DEFINED THEN GENERIC COMPETENCY FOR EACH SUBLEVEL IS DEFINED WITHIN EACH SUBJECT AREA THEN GENERIC COMPETENCY FOR EACH SUBLEVEL IS DEFINED WITHIN EACH SUBJECT AREA

19. CREDIT SYSTEM: COURSES TUNING: CREDIT TIED TO TIME SPENT AND INTELLECTUAL DEMAND TUNING: CREDIT TIED TO TIME SPENT AND INTELLECTUAL DEMAND ALTERNATIVE – U.S. EXPERIENCE WITH LEARNING RESULTS BASED ON SEAT TIME COULD BE SUPPLEMENTED/TRANSLATED INTO CREDITS FOR COURSE ALTERNATIVE – U.S. EXPERIENCE WITH LEARNING RESULTS BASED ON SEAT TIME COULD BE SUPPLEMENTED/TRANSLATED INTO CREDITS FOR COURSE

20. CREDIT SYSTEM: PROGRAMS TUNING: SPECIFIED % OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CREDIT DEFINES PROGRAM TUNING: SPECIFIED % OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CREDIT DEFINES PROGRAM - I.E. AT LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH LEVELS- I.E. AT LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH LEVELS SIMILAR TO U.S., WITH LEVEL OF COURSE DIFFICULTY 101, 201, ETC.SIMILAR TO U.S., WITH LEVEL OF COURSE DIFFICULTY 101, 201, ETC.

21. DIPLOMA SUPPLEMENT: TRANSCRIPT WHETHER IT CAN BE DONE DEPENDS ON SUCCESS OF ALL THE PRECEDING WHETHER IT CAN BE DONE DEPENDS ON SUCCESS OF ALL THE PRECEDING IT ALSO INCLUDES NEW DATA COLLECTION AND INDIVIDUAL TAILORING FOR EACH STUDENT IT ALSO INCLUDES NEW DATA COLLECTION AND INDIVIDUAL TAILORING FOR EACH STUDENT IN SOME WAYS IT IS MORE GEARED TO SPECIALIZED EUROPEAN DEGREES THAN U.S. B.A.s IN SOME WAYS IT IS MORE GEARED TO SPECIALIZED EUROPEAN DEGREES THAN U.S. B.A.s

22. THE SYSTEM IN PRACTICE: COMMUNICATION SKILLS NATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK AND PROGRAM GOALS NATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK AND PROGRAM GOALS Qualifications Framework – Dublin General Qualifications Tuning subject dependent General Learning Outcomes (reference points) Tuning General, Competency Across Disciplines (Transferable skills)T59 Benchmarking (alternative to Tuning) Generic Skills in History (UK) Benchmarking (alternative to Tuning) Learning Outcomes Communicate Information, ideas, problems, and solutions to specialized and non- specialized audiences (18) BA – Communicate the basic knowledge of the field in coherent ways and in appropriate media (oral, written, graphic, etc.) p. 35 Level 1 – instrumental, interpersonal, and systemic (p. 37) Interpersonal includes ability to communicate with experts in other fields T 23 Communication Competence: structure, coherence, clarity and fluency both orally and in writing (p. 44) Clarity, fluency, and coherence in written expression and oral expression (H8) *Progression: AA: can communicate about their understanding, skills and activities with peers, supervisors, and clients; MA = can communicate their conclusions and the knowledge and rational underpinning these, to specialist and non-specialist audiences clearly and unambiguously

23. IN PRACTICE: COMMUNICATION SKILLS - COURSES AND TRANSCRIPTS Level Descriptors For individual courses Tuning Differentiates UK examples of knowledge and application Diploma Supplement proposal for U.S. – excerpts on learning Basic – introduction p. 58 Threshold vs. desired outcomes Apply knowledge to demonstrate comprehension of theory p.61 Qualification framework, if any Intermediate (deepen Basic knowledge) Relative vs.Absolute Value of credits T 53 Develop a distinctive approach to acquisition of knowledge Program requirements in major as objectives, Tuning type disciplinary requirements, credit distributions, etc. Advanced – strengthening expertise Regular vs. extra- challenging Programs T54 Generate ideas formulating responses to well defined and abstract problems Markers of student achievement beyond course content – research, etc. Specialized – subfields that open up at an advanced level Reviewing, consolidating, and extending knowledge

24. THE SYSTEM IN PRACTICE: SUMMARY OF COMMUNICATION SKILLS FRAMEWORK: COMMUNICATE INFORMATION, IDEAS,PROBLEMS, SOLUTIONS TO DIFFERENT AUDIENCES FRAMEWORK: COMMUNICATE INFORMATION, IDEAS,PROBLEMS, SOLUTIONS TO DIFFERENT AUDIENCES SUBJECT: COMMUNICATE BASIC KNOWLEDGE IN COHERENT WAYS IN DIFFERENT MEDIA SUBJECT: COMMUNICATE BASIC KNOWLEDGE IN COHERENT WAYS IN DIFFERENT MEDIA GENERAL: ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE WITH EXPERTS GENERAL: ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE WITH EXPERTS LEVEL: INTRO, DEEPEN, EXPERTISE LEVEL: INTRO, DEEPEN, EXPERTISE ALSO: THRESHOLD, RELATIVE VALUE, EXTRA- CHALLENGING ALSO: THRESHOLD, RELATIVE VALUE, EXTRA- CHALLENGING DIPLOMA: MARKERS OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DIPLOMA: MARKERS OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

25. THE UK SYSTEM IN PRACTICE: HISTORY COMMUNICATION SUBJECT BENCHMARKS -UNDERGRADUATE GENERIC: STRUCTURE, COHERENCE, CLARITY AND FLUENCY, ORAL/WRITTEN GENERIC: STRUCTURE, COHERENCE, CLARITY AND FLUENCY, ORAL/WRITTEN OUTCOMES: CLARITY, FLUENCY, COHERENCE – WRITTEN/ORAL OUTCOMES: CLARITY, FLUENCY, COHERENCE – WRITTEN/ORAL LEVELS: COMPREHENSION, ACQUIRE, GENERATE, EXTEND KNOWLEDGE LEVELS: COMPREHENSION, ACQUIRE, GENERATE, EXTEND KNOWLEDGE

26. ISSUES WOULD FACULTY BE ABLE TO APPLY THIS? WOULD FACULTY BE ABLE TO APPLY THIS? WOULD IT BE SUFFICIENTLY FLEXIBLE ? WOULD IT BE SUFFICIENTLY FLEXIBLE ? IS IT SUFFICIENTLY MEANINGFUL, ESPECIALLY IF USED ONLY AS AUTHORITATIVE REFERENCE POINTS? IS IT SUFFICIENTLY MEANINGFUL, ESPECIALLY IF USED ONLY AS AUTHORITATIVE REFERENCE POINTS? HOW DO DIFFERENTIATIONS AMONG DIFFERENT COURSE LEVELS RELATE TO DIFFERENCES AMONG DEGREE LEVELS? HOW DO DIFFERENTIATIONS AMONG DIFFERENT COURSE LEVELS RELATE TO DIFFERENCES AMONG DEGREE LEVELS?

27. ISSUES DO INFORMAL SYSTEMS WORK BETTER THAN FORMAL ONES? DO INFORMAL SYSTEMS WORK BETTER THAN FORMAL ONES? IS THERE EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENSS OF QF/TUNING? IS THERE EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENSS OF QF/TUNING? SHOULD ASSESSMENT BE DELAYED? SHOULD ASSESSMENT BE DELAYED?

28. U.S. MSCHE REQUIRES THAT DIFFERENT STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES BE DEFINED AT PROGRAM, INSTITUTIONAL, OR COURSE LEVEL, DEPENDING ON TYPE OF GOAL. E.G GENERAL EDUCATION AT INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL.

29. SUGGESTIONS FRAMEWORK : IS A GOOD IDEA, BUT DIFFERENTIATIONS SHOULD BE MORE GENERAL AMONG AA, BAC, GRAD. e.g. CANADA FRAMEWORK : IS A GOOD IDEA, BUT DIFFERENTIATIONS SHOULD BE MORE GENERAL AMONG AA, BAC, GRAD. e.g. CANADA LEVELS WITHIN PROGRAM ARE CONFUSING. SIMPLY ASKING FOR LEARNING GOALS BY FIELD MIGHT BE EASIER. LET EACH INSTITUTION CHOOSE AMONG WHICH AREAS TO DEFINE. LEVELS WITHIN PROGRAM ARE CONFUSING. SIMPLY ASKING FOR LEARNING GOALS BY FIELD MIGHT BE EASIER. LET EACH INSTITUTION CHOOSE AMONG WHICH AREAS TO DEFINE. COURSES –RELATE TO PROGRAM/INSTITUTIONAL GOALS COURSES –RELATE TO PROGRAM/INSTITUTIONAL GOALS

30. ISSUE #3: WHO CREATES AND ENFORCES? STATES ROLE IS LIMITED (PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS), COORDINATION IS DIFFICULT, AND RESOURCES ARE SCARCE STATES ROLE IS LIMITED (PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS), COORDINATION IS DIFFICULT, AND RESOURCES ARE SCARCE A MODEL STATE HE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM (12/2008) REPORTS ON DIFFERENT APPROACHES A MODEL STATE HE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM (12/2008) REPORTS ON DIFFERENT APPROACHES

31. WHO CREATES AND ENFORCES FEDERAL GOVT LACKS AUTHORITY FEDERAL GOVT LACKS AUTHORITY SYSTEMS – ONLY APPLY TO SOME INSTITUTIONS SYSTEMS – ONLY APPLY TO SOME INSTITUTIONS SECTOR PROPOSALS: RESISTENCE ON DIVERSITY GROUNDS SECTOR PROPOSALS: RESISTENCE ON DIVERSITY GROUNDS

32. ALTERNATIVES: QUALIFICATION FRAMEWORK NATIONAL ORGANIZATION REPRESENTING ALL INSTITUTIONS IS NEEDED NATIONAL ORGANIZATION REPRESENTING ALL INSTITUTIONS IS NEEDED ACCREDITORS COULD PRODUCE A JOINT POLICY WITH FUNDING, OR ACCREDITORS COULD PRODUCE A JOINT POLICY WITH FUNDING, OR ACE MIGHT CONVENE A GROUP TO CREATE PROPOSAL REPRESENTING INSTITUTIONS, STATES, STUDENTS, FACULTY, ETC. ACE MIGHT CONVENE A GROUP TO CREATE PROPOSAL REPRESENTING INSTITUTIONS, STATES, STUDENTS, FACULTY, ETC.

33. ALTERNATIVES: QUALIFICATION FRAMEWORK ACE PROPOSAL COULD BE ADOPTED BY ACCREDITORS AND/OR STATES ACE PROPOSAL COULD BE ADOPTED BY ACCREDITORS AND/OR STATES BASIS OF MINIMUM LICENSING STANDARDS FOR STATES BASIS OF MINIMUM LICENSING STANDARDS FOR STATES IT MUST INCLUDE GEN ED SKILLS IT MUST INCLUDE GEN ED SKILLS

34. ALTERNATIVES: PROGRAM GOALS ACE OR ACCREDITORS MIGHT ALSO PROPOSE A GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR HOW DISCIPLINES WOULD DEFINE GOALS - A FEW KEY AREAS ACE OR ACCREDITORS MIGHT ALSO PROPOSE A GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR HOW DISCIPLINES WOULD DEFINE GOALS - A FEW KEY AREAS SPECIALIZED ACCREDITORS HAVE GOALS ALREADY SPECIALIZED ACCREDITORS HAVE GOALS ALREADY

35. ALTERNATIVES: PROGRAM GOALS NATIONAL DISCIPLINARY ASSOCIATIONS HAVE EXPERTISE TO DEFINE GOALS NATIONAL DISCIPLINARY ASSOCIATIONS HAVE EXPERTISE TO DEFINE GOALS FACULTY BUY-IN VS. STATE PROPOSALS FACULTY BUY-IN VS. STATE PROPOSALS EXCELLENT MODELS ALREADY EXCELLENT MODELS ALREADY ASSESSMENT IN POLITICAL SCIENCE APSA (2009) ASSESSMENT IN POLITICAL SCIENCE APSA (2009) ASSESSMENT IN HISTORY – American Historical Association ASSESSMENT IN HISTORY – American Historical Association

36. ALTERNATIVES: PROGRAM GOALS E.G. PSYCHOLOGY APA DEFINED 10 LEARNING GOALS: COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATION INFORMATION AND IT INFORMATION AND IT SOCIOCULTURAL AWARENESS SOCIOCULTURAL AWARENESS PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT CAREER PLANNING WWW.APA.ORG/ED/CRITIQUE_GOALS.HTML CAREER PLANNING WWW.APA.ORG/ED/CRITIQUE_GOALS.HTML KNOWLEDGE BASE KNOWLEDGE BASE RESEARCH METHODS RESEARCH METHODS CRITICAL THINKING CRITICAL THINKING APPLICATION APPLICATION VALUES VALUES

37. ALTERNATIVES: PROGRAM GOALS IT THEN ANALYZES FOR EACH GOAL APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES IT THEN ANALYZES FOR EACH GOAL APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES TEMPLATE PROVIDED TEMPLATE PROVIDED HOW TO INVOLVE FACULTY, EXPLAIN TO STUDENTS, CREATE A PLAN HOW TO INVOLVE FACULTY, EXPLAIN TO STUDENTS, CREATE A PLAN

38. ENFORCEMENT STATES COULD ADOPT COMMON MODEL AND ADD TO IT STATES COULD ADOPT COMMON MODEL AND ADD TO IT ACCREDITORS COULD STIPULATE THAT USE OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION GOALS WOULD BE PRESUMED TO COMPLY WITH EXISTING ACCREDITATION REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT PRECLUDING OTHER APPROACHES ACCREDITORS COULD STIPULATE THAT USE OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION GOALS WOULD BE PRESUMED TO COMPLY WITH EXISTING ACCREDITATION REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT PRECLUDING OTHER APPROACHES

39. ENFORCEMENT BENCHMARKS/COMPARABILITY – WOULD BE LEFT TO INSTITUTIONS, WITH ACCREDITATION REVIEW BENCHMARKS/COMPARABILITY – WOULD BE LEFT TO INSTITUTIONS, WITH ACCREDITATION REVIEW ASSESSMENT AND IMPROVEMENT MUST BE DEFINED/ASSURED AT THE SAME TIME AS GOALS ASSESSMENT AND IMPROVEMENT MUST BE DEFINED/ASSURED AT THE SAME TIME AS GOALS EVIDENCE IS A REQUIRED ELEMENT OF ACCREDITATION SELF-STUDY BY INSTITUTION EVIDENCE IS A REQUIRED ELEMENT OF ACCREDITATION SELF-STUDY BY INSTITUTION

40. ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED USE OF QUALITY ASSURANCE NETWORKS USE OF QUALITY ASSURANCE NETWORKS PUBLIC DISCLOSURE – HOW SHOULD MINIMUM GOALS AND ACHIEVEMENTS BE PRESENTED? PUBLIC DISCLOSURE – HOW SHOULD MINIMUM GOALS AND ACHIEVEMENTS BE PRESENTED? MAYBE CLARITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN LENGTHMAYBE CLARITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN LENGTH - ONE MODEL: SCHEV IN VIRGINIA

41. ESSENTIALS FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY UPDATING UPDATING TRUST TRUST

42. WHATS NEXT? WHATS NEXT? IF U.S. ADOPTS A SIMPLER FRAMEWORK, OTHER COUNTRIES MIGHT FOLLOW IF U.S. ADOPTS A SIMPLER FRAMEWORK, OTHER COUNTRIES MIGHT FOLLOW U.S. CAN USE EXISTING ACCREDITATION LEARNING REQUIREMENTS, WITH INCENTIVES FOR BETTER GOALS U.S. CAN USE EXISTING ACCREDITATION LEARNING REQUIREMENTS, WITH INCENTIVES FOR BETTER GOALS CONTINUE TO STRESS ASSESSMENT/IMPROVEMENT CONTINUE TO STRESS ASSESSMENT/IMPROVEMENT