COPRA Policy Statement

Based on COPRA decisions made June 2011

At its June 2011 meeting in Utah, the Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation made final accreditation conformance decisions on five programs that agreed to pilot the new NASPAA 2009 accreditation standards. After an initial Self-Study review and a site visit, all five programs were reaccredited for the maximum term available. The following comments provide some window into COPRA's decision-making and provide early guidance on the implementation of the 2009 accreditation standards.

1. Thresholds for conformance on some issues have not yet been established, as there was significant variability in the pilot group, especially when it comes to the nuanced review of student learning outcomes. A pilot group of five programs is a small sample, and not an unbiased one, either, as all programs voluntarily sought to review their programs under the new requirements. Additionally, the pilot programs only had the new requirements less than a year before their accreditation cycle began. It will take another round or so of reviews for COPRA to get a better understanding of where the true baseline is for conformance on some of the newer requirements. For now, all programs appear to have defined the universal competencies with respect to their missions and are at some level assessing that learning and using those results for decision-making. Not all programs in the first round had defined competencies for advertized specializations, but COPRA's expectations in this area will grow over time.

2. Competencies: COPRA's expects to observe a clear link between the program's mission and the competencies expected of its students. Programs are encouraged to use logic models or other similar illustrations in their Self Study Reports to show the connections between the various aspects of their goals, measurements, and outcomes.

3. White papers. Two new concepts in the 2009 accreditation standards merited additional explanation and guidance after the first round of reviews. COPRA will be releasing two white papers in Fall 2011, one on competency assessment and COPRA's implementation expectations, and the other on faculty qualifications, including how to articulate which faculty members are academically and professionally qualified. (Available in the COPRA Interpretations Section)

4. Faculty Diversity. While the 2009 accreditation standards do not explicitly ask for a diversity plan, it is very difficult to articulate how the program works to "promote diversity and climate of inclusiveness" without a strategic diversity plan, or demonstrable program strategies, developed with respect to a program's unique mission and environment.

5. Executive Education. This remains an area of continuing policy development for COPRA. Under the 2009 accreditation standards, it remains possible in exceptional cases for a program to articulate that an Executive MPA program exists as a track or component of the MPA, when both programs are served by a single mission and a single set of competencies, even if some "inputs" are different. While this gives programs additional options for articulating conformance, this does not negate, and remains consistent with, COPRA's 2008-09 Policy Statement: Executive MPA's a. COPRA Policy Statement: In most instances Executive MPA (E-MPA) programs are no longer appropriately considered a track or option within a MPA degree program, but rather separate programs with a unique mission and a distinct student population. Accordingly, COPRA considers it appropriate for these E-MPA's to be recognized as distinct degrees requiring separate Self-Study Reports. If a program seeks accreditation of a single degree program that includes both traditional MPA and E-MPA components, the burden will be on the program to demonstrate that a single mission, admission criteria, faculty, curriculum, etc apply to all students in the program. Programs must still make the argument that viewing the Executive program as a track is appropriate in their case, and that a "single set of competencies" and a "single mission" is also appropriate in their context.

6. Student retention. For both the pre and post-2009 accreditation standards, COPRA continues its focus on ensuring the connection between mission and goals, admissions, student tracking, retention, graduation, and student services. Tracking student success and retention is critical to ensuring consistency between the mission, admissions practices, student services, and graduation placement. Programs that have difficulty tracking students tend to struggle to meet accreditation requirements in many of these areas.

7. COPRA substantially revised its Policies and Procedures for Accreditation document. All programs seeking accreditation should be familiar with these requirements. This document is posted on the NASPAA website.

The guidance contained below refers to the old NASPAA Standards (pre-2009) it is for programs using the old standards.  As COPRA establishes new guidance and precedents through its work with the pilot programs and throughout the full implementation of the standards this page will be updated. 


COPRA Policies and Clarifications 2008-2009 

1. Executive MPA’s
a. COPRA Policy Statement: In most instances Executive MPA (E-MPA) programs are no longer appropriately considered a track or option within a MPA degree program, but rather separate programs with a unique mission and a distinct student population. Accordingly, COPRA considers it appropriate for these E-MPA’s to be recognized as distinct degrees requiring separate Self-Study Reports. If a program seeks accreditation of a single degree program that includes both traditional MPA and E-MPA components, the burden will be on the program to demonstrate that a single mission, admission criteria, faculty, curriculum, etc apply to all students in the program.

2. Credit for Experience or Nontraditional Coursework
a. COPRA Policy Statement: Programs that grant academic credit for work experience or coursework taken outside of traditional university graduate coursework must articulate a mission-based rationale for this practice and demonstrate that the Program has developed and consistently applies appropriate criteria for evaluating the quality and relevance of the work. 

3. Limits on Undergraduate Coursework
a. COPRA Policy Statement: Programs accredited by COPRA under usual circumstances should not allow any more than 2 courses of undergraduate coursework to count toward the professional graduate degree. In most cases, undergraduate credit should not count toward common curriculum (core) coursework or as a substitute for a common curriculum course. When undergraduate courses are permitted as elective coursework, the burden is on the Program to demonstrate that appropriate levels of oversight are provided in student advising and evaluating the quality, rigor, and relevance of the undergraduate courses.

4. Defining “significant professional experience”
a. COPRA Policy Statement: For programs that grant waivers of internship requirements or specific courses within the curriculum on the basis of “significant professional experience,” the burden is on the Program to demonstrate that it has a mission-based rationale for the practice as well as a clear and consistently applied policy to assess the length, relevance and level of responsibility associated with that experience. 

1. Standard 4.21 Information Management and Technology
a. Over the past few cohorts, COPRA has seen programs struggling with Standard 4.21 IT. The Commission is looking for evidence that all students are exposed to information management, technology applications and policy in the core curriculum. The evidence should include examples of how students are exposed to issues such as privacy, security, accessibility of technologies, and policies regarding the collection, use and dissemination of information, or other information management and policy topics related to the program’s unique mission. 

2. Standard 5.5 Faculty Diversity
a. The Commission has also seen programs struggling with Standard 5.5. The Commission is looking for evidence that program-specific plans are in place and are being implemented to promote faculty diversity with regard to faculty recruitment, supplemental diversity efforts (such as diversifying adjuncts and guest speakers), and providing a positive and supportive atmosphere for women, minorities, and persons with disabilities. Solely discussing a university-wide affirmative action plan for hiring is not sufficient to meet this standard.

3. Standard 6.3 Admission Factors/ 7.1 Advisement and Appraisal
a. For programs with relatively open admissions policies, the Commission is looking for evidence that the program has a mission-based rationale for its admission policies, is limiting admission to applicants showing good potential for success, and is able to demonstrate a link between the relatively open admission policy and the program’s advisement and appraisal structure.