Home > Accreditation > Accreditation Institute > Five Faculty Rule

“Five Faculty Rule” Workshop
October 28, 2003
Accreditation Institute, NASPAA Pittsburgh Conference

Is the “Five Faculty Rule” (Standard 5.1) still appropriate in an age of outcome measures?

NASPAA’s Standard 5.1, which includes the language requiring five nucleus faculty, was the topic of a special workshop session of the Accreditation Institute. The session had its origin in a discussion hosted on the NASPAA Small Programs listserve. The purpose of the Accreditation Institute session was to introduce some of the issues that have arisen around the topic of the Five Faculty rule, listen to different viewpoints on the topic (Click here to provide your views for posting on this website via email to copra@naspaa.org ), and explore some possible future changes to the standard.

The accreditation institute session focused on two issues: confusion about the existing standard and the possibility of altering the existing standard.

Confusion about the Existing Standard 5.1 (Faculty Nucleus)

Standard 5.1 currently states that the “…regular faculty should consist of a sufficient number of full-time faculty significantly involved with the program to support the set of teaching, research, and service responsibilities appropriate to the size and structure of the program. In no case should this faculty nucleus be fewer than five (5) full-time persons.”

The “Self Study Instructions” to Standard 5.1 tell self study writers to demonstrate that their program has achieved a critical mass of faculty by “discuss[ing] such factors such as the depth and breadth of professional interest represented by the faculty; the opportunities for professional interaction among the faculty; and the opportunities for students to be exposed to the appropriate range of faculty viewpoints and content areas within major programs of study.” It then asks the program to provide “a summary listing for the faculty members employed full-time by the institution who have primary responsibility for the masters program being reviewed. This regular faculty should consist of a minimum of five (5) persons who are full time faculty members at the university and are significantly involved in the teaching and operation of the masters program being reviewed.”

The vagueness of the definition of faculty nucleus has troubled many programs, especially small ones. They wonder whether a particular faculty member is “significantly involved” enough to warrant inclusion in the nucleus faculty. Particularly difficult are those cases where a faculty member is attached to another department, but teaches one or more courses in the MPA or MPP program, or a faculty member who has heavy undergraduate or PhD teaching responsibilities. Some programs have developed tests, based on their mission and program, to assess whether each faculty member is significantly involved in the MPA or MPP program to warrant nucleus status. For an example of this approach, here is an excerpt from the University of Delaware’s self study:

Some programs have developed more deductive tests of core faculty: they identify the number of different PhDs needed to cover the core curriculum with an appropriately qualified PhD in each main area of the core, and then identify the entire set of tasks necessary to operate a well-functioning MPA/MPP program: student recruitment, admissions, advisement, internship coordination, career services, records policy, curriculum coordination, etc. Then they look at who is actually involved in each of those teaching areas, and administrative/advisement areas, and identify their core faculty through that approach.

In short, COPRA currently provides no cookie cutter approach to defining five nucleus faculty, which creates some uncertainty for schools, but which also gives significant scope for each school to make its case regarding five core faculty, based on its own unique mission and circumstances.

The Accreditation Institute portion of the website now provides some “case law” examples of past COPRA decisions regarding five nucleus faculty. These cases are meant to be illustrative only, and while indicative of COPRA’s general approach to interpretation of Standard 5.1, they do not necessarily indicate how the Commission will interpret Standard 5.1 in other individual cases. (The Commission reviews programs in a mission-based framework, and each case is therefore unique.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Future of the Five Faculty Standard (5.1)

COPRA and NASPAA are reviewing all of the accreditation standards for professional masters degree programs in an effort to place more emphasis on outcomes. This is reflecting both the rising tide of interest in outcomes in higher education in general, and the more specific expectation by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation that recognized accrediting bodies should move away from input standards and focus more on outcomes in their reviews.

Viewed in this light, the Five Faculty Rule appears rather anachronistic, looking back at a time when quality was assessed more in terms of inputs than outcomes and performance. And in its present stark form (“In no case should this faculty nucleus be fewer than five full-time persons”), it also appears arbitrary: why Five? Why not the Three Faculty Rule, or Seven? And yet, at NASPAA, for many years, there has been a shared consensus among both COPRA and many schools that five was not just an arbitrary number, but rather the result of considered expert reflection on how many people it really takes to run a good professional program, that is inherently multidisciplinary and often in a highly academic graduate setting where professional programs must struggle for identity and to provide special services to prepare students as professionals in public service. For many, “reform” of the Five Faculty rule is less about setting aside the language of the standard, than about articulating the long-standing tacit rationale for the Five Faculty rule that has existed behind the standard. But for others, the task is truly one of re-examining the entire of issue of how NASPAA looks at faculty quality, and whether there might be better ways, more closely related to outcomes and performance, of achieving that goal.

To begin the discussion of possible changes to Standard 5.1, a list of options discussed at the October 2003 Accreditation Institute has been posted on the NASPAA website.

Please email NASPAA at copra@naspaa.org if you would like to identify additional options or comment on already posted ones. NASPAA and COPRA encourage programs and individuals of all viewpoints to participate in this important and ongoing discussion.