PARADIGM SHIFT
FROM PROGRAM TO INSTITUTIONAL ACCREDITATION: THE
PHILIPPINE STATE INSTITUTIONS’ EXPERIENCE
Nilo E. Colinares, Ed.D.
Consultant
Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and
Universities in the Philippines (AACCUP), Inc.
Presentation in Six Parts
I.
Introduction (from Conceptualization to
Concretization)
II.
The Launch and the Hoped-For-Advantages
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
2009: The Year of Implementation
Possible Future Development
Implications to Progressive Implementation
Conclusion (from INQAAHE 2001 to INQAAHE
2009)
I. INTRODUCTION
A. The Conceptualization of
the Schema
– INQAAHE Biennial
Conference 2001, Bangalore
– Authority cum Accountability
in Accreditation
– Dr. Manuel T Corpus,
Founding President,
Executive Director, AACCUP
B. The Philippine HEIs Scenario
• 1,726 higher education
institutions
• 203 (12%) public
institutions, the
AACCUP clientele
• 1,523 private or 88% of
the total HEIs
population
1. The Philippine Education Budget Vis-à-vis
the Asian Countries
Malaysia
Thailand
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
Philippines
• 6.2% of
gross
domestic
product;
• 4.2 %
• 3.6%
• 3.5%
• 3.1%
• 2.5%
C. The AACCUP Environment
1. Membership in AACCUP
Total Number of SUCs
110
Number of SUC Members
101
•Members with Accreditation
95
•Members w/o Accreditation
6
Number of Non-Member
SUCs
9
Number of Local Colleges
2
92%
8%
2. The Rise of Program Accreditation
1992 to Present
Year
Number of Number
Programs of SUCs
The Rise of Program Accreditation
488
500
1992
2000
2008
11
132
488
6
400
300
39
200
63
100
0
132
39
11 6
1992
2000
Number of Programs
63
2008
Number of SUCs
4. Global Influences
Asian Development Bank Study (2000)
Paper at INQAAHE Conference (2001)
Bangalore,India
British Council Assistance (2002)
Australian Universities Quality Agency (2003)
APQN-Sponsored Training of Accreditors for
Institutional Accreditation (2005)
CPSC Influence (2005)
World Bank Influence in East Timor Project (2008)
3. The 1,310 Programs
(as of 2008)
Number of
Programs
349
Status (Level)
1. Candidate
2. Level I Accredited
336
3. Level II Reaccredited
383
4. Qualified for Level III
125
5. Level III Reaccredited
117
Total
1,310
5. Continuation of Accreditation by
Program
Strength
It is focused
Basis is the grant of some benefits
Limitations
Not appropriate in countries with many HEIs.
Relatively slow.
6. Consistency in Pursuit of Institutional
Accreditation
2001
- Toward A Relevant Model of Quality
Assurance: Redesigning the Current
System
2002
- Institutional Accreditation: A Shift to a
more Relevant Model for SUCs
2003
- Institutional Accreditation: top Agenda
Item
- Institutional Accreditation: Past, Present
and Trends
- Go for Institutional Accreditation
2004
2005
consistent themes. . .
2005 - Go for Institutional Accreditation
2006 - Be Institutional, Go Global
2007 - Twenty Years of Accreditation: Trials,
Tribulations and Triumph followed by a
Seminar-Workshop on the preparation of
Institutional Accreditation Evaluation
Instruments
2008 - Institutional Accreditation: Enhancing the
Quality of Institutions
2009 - Push forward the AACCUP drive for Inst.
Accred.
II. The Launch and the
Hoped-for Advantages
• In the 21st Annual
National Conference of
2008, AACCUP launched
the adoption of
Institutional Accreditation
amidst the cheers of
participating SUCs, now
partially convinced of the
advantages that follow:
A. Usefulness and Relevance to
Stakeholders
1. the government, state-funded institutions,
SUCs; in legislative budgetary hearings
2. students- claims for rights, privileges
3. employers- referrals from institutions, not
individual programs
4. aid-granting institutions, donors, foundationscommitment and accountability demanded
from recipient – the INSTITUTION, not from
individual programs
B. More Accurate Indicator of
Quality of Education
1. Entry requirements
a. For a school to be qualified for
institutional accreditation, at least
75% of its programs should be
accredited
b. Unaccredited programs may be
evaluated during the institutional
accreditation visit.
C. More Appropriate for –
1. countries with many HEIs
2. more advanced educational systems
D. Faster
1. the institution concerned has had its
programs already evaluated
2. the institution is taken as a whole
with no more details assessed,
having been taken care of during
program accreditation
E. Encourages Institutions to
Demonstrate 1. continuous improvement ina.
b.
c.
d.
all programs offered
services offered
activities undertaken and
the whole system rather than just a
few pockets of entire unit
F. Enables Institutions to Achieve Recognition
and Enhanced Status along1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
General administration and services
Instruction
Research
Extension
Resource generation and management;
and to profit from the synergism of each.
G. Motivates institutions in their respective
totality to aspire for and work towards global
competitiveness
III. 2009: Year of Implementation
A. 22nd AACCUP Annual
National Conference theme:
Push Forward the 2009
Drive for Institutional
Accreditation.
– Review of dynamics– Pre-accreditation
requirements, criteria,
instruments,procedures
B.
Pilot Survey Visit and Workshop
– The Conference will be followed by a hands-on
experience in conducting a pilot accreditation
survey visit. The pilot-testing of the new scheme
will be conducted in one of the five SUCs which
have submitted their intent t embrace
institutional accreditation and volunteered to act
as an academic “guinea pig”, for the new
experiment. The visit will also serve as part of the
workshop for the core group of institutional
Accreditors.
1. The Strategy
1. Select and invite 50 participants starting with those
already trained on institutional accreditation. They will
form the core of AACCUP Institutional Accreditors.
2. Submit the workshop for APQN sponsorship or assistance
in the form of engaging the services of 2 consultants
and sponsoring 10 participants from among APQN
members.
3. Seek the assistance of the British Council, the World Bank
and the Columbo Plan Staff College for possible
assistance in the form of speakers.
4. Enlist CHED technical and financial assistance.
The Strategy continued…
A select group of 50 accreditors and 10 foreign
participants are expected to attend.
The exercise will focus AACCUP as the first
accrediting agency in the Philippines to have
fully implemented institutional accreditation as
a unit of assessment in government and other
institutions.
2. The Hoped-for Result
– With all activities successfully carried out, it is
hoped that the transition from program to
institutional accreditation among SUCs in the
country, will prove to be a dynamic tool for the
propagation of an effective, efficient and
sustainable unit of assessment to be
appreciated, and emulated by all accrediting
agencies in the country.
IV. Possible Future Development
• As AACCUP goes about
the initial steps in the new
scheme, current events in
both the national and
regional academic zones
of Asia, augur well for the
progressive
implementation of
institutional accreditation,
specifically, these are:
A. CHED’s IQUAME
– Institutional Quality Assurance through Monitoring and
Evaluation (IQUAME) for1. grant of “Autonomous and Deregulated Status for
private HEIs”
2. inputs to CHED Policies, Standards and Guidelines
(PSG) for grant of University Status
3. a supporting push towards AACCUP’s drive.
Through IQUAME’s approach to institutional
monitoring and evaluation, AACCUP’s institutional
accreditation drive for 2009, finds more relevance
and appropriateness in the HEI universe.
B. The Coordinating Council on
Accreditation (CCA)
a. Task: to formulate a
common set of
standards, procedures
and instruments for
accreditation.
b. Composition:
representatives from
the five existing
accrediting agencies.
c. Implications to AACCUP
Drive.
It is opined that if CHED
will pursue a common
set of standards, such
commonality will find
more meaning in
institutional
accreditation.
C. The ASEAN Quality Assurance
Network (AQAN)
1. SEAMEO RIHED and
Malaysian Quality Assurance
(MQA) project of
“Harmonization of Higher
Education and Quality
Assurance” with quality
assurance as key element 2.
which resulted in the Kuala
Lumpur Declaration to –
a. Share best practices
b. Develop an ASEAN QA
framework
c. Collaborate on capacity
building
d. Facilitate recognition of
qualifications and cross border mobility
Relevance of to Institutional
Accreditation to Kuala Lumpur
Declaration. It is believed that the
concretization of the Declaration
would be more possible of
fulfillment in a single-shot
institutional accreditation
schema, rather than in a multifaceted program evaluation.
V. Implications to Progressive
Implementation
A. IQUAME and AACCUP
1)
Identical Approaches
• IQUAME: approach is
complementary to program,
but is concerned with the
overall strategic operation
of an institution in its
entirety.
• AACCUP: Accreditation by
program will continue but
I.A. is the most appropriate
in countries with many
HEIs, like the Philippines.
2. Identical Criteria
• AACCUP has the same
• IQUAMEevaluates
indicators of Gov. and
“Governance and
Mgt., Support to
Management”,
Students and Mgt. of
• “Support to Students”,
Resources
“Management of
• AACCUP similarly assesses
Resources”.
“Extension, Consultancy
• IQUAME looks into
and Linkages”, “Research”
“Relations with
and “Teaching and
Community”, “Quality
Learning”.
Research and Teaching”
3. Professional Partnership
B. The CCA Objective and
Existing Common Standards…
1. The five accrediting agencies are currently
following common set of standards such as
a. “Levels of Accreditation”
b.CHED recognition through federation
c. validity/duration of levels of accreditation.
2. More commonality will ensue if they adopt
Institutional Accreditation as unit of
assessment.
C. AQAN’s Project
1. SEAMEO RIHED’s and MQA’s AQAN
spells out among other roles, “sharing
of best practices” in the Kuala Lumpur
Declaration.
2. This will necessarily reveal that for
countries with numerous HEIs, such as
the US, Russia, India, Institutional
Accreditation is the most practical unit
of assessment to utilize.
D. This INQAAHE Conference 2009
1. The theme”New Approaches to Quality
Assurance in the Changing World”,and the
Sub-theme, “DifferentApproaches to QA and
their impact on efficiency, effectiveness and
sustainability”
2. Quality assurance bodies will present theories and
practices. many of which will border on
institutional accreditation
3. Presentations and Discussions will Enhance
Chances for Success of AACCUP 2009 Drive
• The world-wide expositions on the scheme
will surely enhance the chances for success
of the recent adoption and subsequent
implementation of the complementary unit
of assessment by the state institutions of
the Philippines through the AACCUP.
VI. Conclusion
From INQAAHE 2001 to…
• What began for
AACCUP as an
INQAAHEinspired/motivated
concept in 2001, has
materialized,has
become concrete, more
enriched and
flourished,
to INQAAHE 2009
• ….again, through the
sharing of experiences, of
world-wide best practices
in quality assurance
strategies, in this
INQAAHE 2009 assembly
of world quality assurance
leaders, the world’s who’s
who in quality education
advocacies