Home > Accreditation > Accreditation Institute > Five Faculty Rule

Discussion: Options for Standard 5.1 (Five faculty Nucleus)


(NB: This page is based on an Accreditation Institute session at the NASPAA Conference, October 2003, and is a discussion document only. It does not necessarily reflect the policies of COPRA or the NASPAA Standards Committee.)


1. No change. In essence, each school would then retain considerable scope to make its case regarding five core faculty, based on its own unique mission and circumstances. This would be at the cost of continued uncertainty about whether a program is likely to be able to prove it conforms to the standard.

2. Keep the “5” in the Faculty Nucleus Standard 5.1, but sharpen definition of faculty member in the Self Study Instructions to remove ambiguity about who counts, perhaps by COPRA supplying clearer “tests” for determining whether a faculty member is nucleus or not. For an example of a school that already does this, see http://www.naspaa.org/accreditation/institute/rule/uofdelaware.asp for document containing U Del approach). This approach would reduce uncertainty, but would not address the “arbitrariness” or the input nature of the current standard language.

3. Modify the 5 faculty minimum in Standard 5.1 with clear definitions for mission-based or performance-based exceptions. This would probably allow more small programs to come forward for accreditation, but might chip away at the principle that 5 is the minimum critical mass.

4. Toughen the existing 5 Faculty Nucleus Standard by supplementing the 5 with additional language concerning expectations of faculty performance/quality.

5 . Remove the number “5” from Standard 5.1’s faculty nucleus language and replace with alternate mission, functional, performance-oriented, and/or outcomes-oriented language. For example, the standards language could addresses faculty nucleus in terms of functional adequacy (ability to recruit, admit, instruct, advise, and place students in a professional program, for example), and disciplinary breadth necessary to cover the core curriculum, might be a less input-oriented approach. It could take a more mission or performance basis: “sufficient number of faculty to fulfill its mission” or “faculty nucleus of sufficient size to develop in students the full set of competencies necessary to perform as professionals in the public and non-profit sectors.” The language could also be explicitly performance-based: “to achieve excellence in coverage of the core curriculum and specializations.”