In order to better understand your needs and concerns about professional accreditation, I commissioned a survey of current and formerly accredited institutions upon becoming NCATE president. McKinley Marketing conducted the survey for NCATE last October. The survey provides objective data to inform future changes in NCATE’s direction and processes.

In the spirit of accountability to our institutions and transparency in our process, I am providing feedback to you on the field’s response. At the end of this note you will find a summary of highlights of the survey which was sent to deans and NCATE coordinators at all NCATE institutions.

We have shared detailed information from the survey with NCATE policy boards to help them as they deliberate on proposals to transform and redesign the process. Overwhelmingly, you said that you would provide key outcome data on the Annual Report in exchange for a significantly simplified unit and program review continuing accreditation process. Options will be presented to the Unit Accreditation Board in April and the Executive Board in May. I will communicate to you the proposals and changes which are approved as soon as we have final approval from the Executive Board.

Accreditation should not only determine the quality of the school of education, but should also lead to program improvement and thus provide value to the institution. Accreditation should also afford opportunities for institutions to strengthen the knowledge base on effective practices and to be able to share this information systematically with other NCATE institutions. Our future directions include emphasis on each of these imperatives.

To bring you up to date on our progress thus far, this spring NCATE is

• Pilot-testing shorter on-site visits which begin on Sunday rather than Saturday, saving time and money for institutions
• Conducting pre-visits either through phone calls and email, or in person, depending on the wishes of the chair and the unit head
• Pilot-testing electronic focused visits
• Making visits to P-12 schools optional, to save time and resources (communication with P-12 schools is still conducted, and data is analyzed, which informs the visit)
• Making poster sessions on Sunday night optional
• Using an online IR (since Fall 2008)
• For Fall 2009, the IR has been reduced in size per your feedback

These steps were accomplished prior to reviewing the survey data. Now that we have the data, we are analyzing ways to further redesign unit and program review processes to reduce institutional burden and increase the value of the accreditation visit for you.

Once the proposals have been drafted, some time in February we will be posting them on our website for field review. I will send you a note at that time so that you can be fully informed of the direction NCATE is heading, and provide substantive feedback on the proposals.

Sincerely,

James G. Cibulka
President

Summary of Highlights from 2008 Survey of NCATE Institutions

RESEARCH OVERVIEW

The first phase of the research consisted of an immersion meeting with NCATE staff to collect data, establish procedures and confirm objectives of the project. The second phase consisted of telephone interviews with NCATE-accredited institutions. A total of 22 interviews were conducted, targeting five institutional audience segments:

• Baccalaureate5
• Master8
• Research.3
• High Research2
• Very High Research4

The third phase of the research involved a quantitative electronic survey of institutions currently and formerly accredited by NCATE. The electronic survey was conducted in October 2008 and sent to 1,422 deans and coordinators at 712 NCATE institutions. McKinley received 790 complete and partial responses (a 56% response rate.) A second survey was sent to 80 previously accredited institutions and resulted in 23 completed and partial responses (a 29% response rate.)

McKinley conducted all of the research, analyzed the data, and prepared the report. All respondent information has been kept confidential; their report does not reveal information from any individual source.

RESPONDENT PROFILE

Strengths

NCATE is Widely Recognized as a Leader in Teacher Education

Both the qualitative and quantitative research shows that institutions perceive NCATE accreditation as a mark of high quality. One telephone interview participant explained that participation in the NCATE accreditation process is “a seal of approval and quality” and a way to “ become more attractive to the student body and prospective students.”

Survey statistics similarly show that institutions recognize the impact of NCATE accreditation. When asked to rate the impact on the quality of teacher education programs, respondents produced a mean score of 5.08 / 7 on a 7-point scale (7 = significant positive impact and 1 = no positive impact.) Of those, almost half selected a 6 or 7 and only 9% selected a 1 or 2.

The research also supports a common perception that NCATE has high standards and maintains professionalism in its accreditation process. Survey participants see professionalism as a key component of the accreditation process, with 91% of survey respondents seeing NCATE as “professional,” as opposed to 9% who see NCATE as “novice.”

Trust in the quality of the NCATE accreditation process is evident in the projected renewal rates. 96% of survey respondents plan to continue accreditation, signifying commitment to the process.

A significant number of institutions choose NCATE accreditation on a voluntary basis (39%) as opposed to being required by the state.

NCATE Staff and Resources Provide Value to Institutions

 Participants ranked the helpfulness of NCATE staff and resources very highly.

When asked what NCATE could do to provide greater technical assistance with the accreditation process, the most common open-ended response was “no change / fine as is” (59 / 301 responses). Several (14 / 301) also mentioned that NCATE has an excellent staff.

Respondents See NCATE as Committed to Improvement

85% of survey respondents said NCATE is improving, versus 15% who chose ‘declining’ when asked to decide between pairs of word choices.

Opportunities for Improvement

Amount of Documentation Required

 Survey participants said that the amount of documentation required is excessive (66%) and while that belief is still strongly held, the year 2008 has shown some level of decrease in dissatisfaction with the amount of documentation. 51 percent of those accredited in 2008 said that documentation was excessive.

Institutions believe NCATE is improving, but they still seek better change management and stronger support from NCATE.

 Survey participants provided feedback on NCATE’s approach to change management and cited examples where processes were altered without advance notification or during accreditation cycles. Respondents found these changes to be disruptive and even felt that the changes could have jeopardized their success in the accreditation process.

Need for Increased Consistency of BOE Teams

 Respondents ask NCATE to provide better training for team members; to scrutinize team members’ qualifications more thoroughly; and to assign team members to visit institutions with programs they understand.

Need for Improvement in Program Review Process

 All types of institutions expressed a need for the program review process to be changed to reduce the burden on institutions. Institutions cited a failure to clearly and consistently communicate guidelines, as well as a burdensome, time-consuming process, and questioned the investment of faculty and staff time and dollars in the process. The mean satisfaction for participants who completed the program review process through NCATE is a 3.85 on a 7-point scale (7 = extremely satisfied and 1 = not at all satisfied). 28% of respondents selected a 1 or 2 on a 7-point scale, indicating that they are very dissatisfied with the NCATE program review process.

As changes have been made to the NCATE program review process, it is important to take a closer look at the survey responses from those who participated in the spring 2008 pilot. Although the percentage of spring 2008 pilot respondents (20%) who rated satisfaction with the NCATE program review process a 1 or 2 on a 7-point scale (7 = extremely satisfied and 1 = not at all satisfied) is lower than that of all combined respondents (28%), the level of dissatisfaction among the spring pilot group is still pervasive.

Possible Future Directions

96 percent of respondents said that if the unit accreditation and program review process were significantly simplified for continuing accreditation, they would be willing to provide key outcomes data on the Annual Report.

48 percent said it would be ‘very ‘likely’ or ‘somewhat likely’ to select an option for continuing accreditation if NCATE were to offer a self-improvement plan similar to that of the Southern Association of Schools’ Quality Enhancement Process or that of another regional accreditor.