Home > Accreditation > NASPAA Standard 2009 > 

Accreditation Discussion: Went the Distance on April 16

Successful Talks on Accreditation Standards

More than 100 people participated in the NASPAA Regional Meetings on Accreditation Standards April 16 and 17, 2008. Discussions were lively and engaging according to some of the schools that hosted the event in the 14 different locations across the country. Three of the most important issues discussed in the meetings were the following: the link between mission and competencies, the accreditation mechanism and process, and the need for sustained participation and discussion on accreditation standards. Please see below some “remarks” from the Hosts:


From Atlanta, GA
“In general, participants believe the direction the standards are moving is much better than the current standards, and that these revisions' "time has come." They viewed these standards as helpful tools for self-assessment, encouraging programs to collect relevant data and "do something" with it, as well as an instigating force to move programs in the directions they should be moving toward.

The key concerns that came up in our group probably resulted from the mix of a couple of very research-intensive programs and several very teaching-intensive programs. The teaching-oriented programs were very concerned about the pieces of the standards that seemed to suggest that NASPAA would set minimum standards for research productivity…The more research-oriented programs were concerned about whether NASPAA wants to set minimum standards for community service. Some participants also expressed concern that the more general standards might lead to greater variation in treatment of programs due to differences among COPRA members.”

Gregory B. Lewis
Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation (COPRA) 
National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA)


From Austin TX
“The standards (or instructions) will need to provide a “sense” of “what is expected” (i.e., examples or minimums). It appears that expectations about reporting requirements and record keeping will be (are) ambiguous? The new standards cause us to take a new look at the accreditation mechanism and process. -Need something (guidelines?) to indicate that the standards (expectations) are not "one size fits all", and how it is not; - Instructions (or even the standards and guidelines) will need lots of examples from a variety of programs (size, type, etc.)…

In general, the new standards are a definite improvement over the current standards because there are more "inclusive" and focus on outcomes. The new standards should enable more programs to be accredited, which should be good for the profession.”

Ken Matwiczak, PhD
Senior Lecturer/Graduate Advisor
LBJ School of Public Affairs
University of Texas at Austin


From Boston, MA
“Among the key issues discussed, the following were particularly prominent:
1) If the accreditation process is mission driven, does it become open to mission statements that are not really focused on public service, although they give 'lip service' to public service. Too much focus on the mission can mean the loss of specifying key functions/competencies that are generally agreed should be part of a MPA or MPP program.

2) If the standards are general in design, and the more specific criteria, like the 5-person rule, are in the supporting narrative, do those criteria really carry the weight of the standard? Could a program argue that they don't really need to meet the criteria?” 

John Portz
Chair, Department of Political Science, Northeastern University


From Denton, TX 
“Stronger movement towards competency based approach evidence by student learning outcomes; telling them what they're expected to know – outcomes in syllabus. Making clear what the mission is because it anchors everything. Programs are going to need training on how to write a mission statement. 
Overall structure - rational and well organized. Words "Public Service" is new one - comfortable with new umbrella statement. Not everyone thinks "Public Affairs" fits, however, that term is more problematic. If not Public Service, what do we teach? If we go the route of Public Service, it might minimize Public Administration. Would be hard for individuals to change because management is so ingrained.

Are programs expected to start over De Novo in collecting new outcome information? One solution could be to have capture points throughout the year and not just 2 months before a review. NASPAA could create a computer software program that will generate an annual report on the information that is generated. This could eliminate the seven year reviews because we would have yearly information on how a program is doing. A seven year visit could still be part of the review process for compliance purposes.”

Abraham Benavides 
Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration
The University of North Texas


From Durham, NC
“The NASPAA Regional Meeting on Standards that we hosted at North Carolina Central University last week was a great success…Rick Kearney of COPRA was the discussion leader and he did a marvelous job. We all gave him our views on the suggested changes and spent time discussing some of the changes at length…Our discussion extended to lunch time and continued after the wonderful lunch that we had. 

Once again, it was a great pleasure hosting the event.”

Chris Kimaru, Ph.D. 
North Carolina Central University

Accreditation Discussion at North Carolina Central University


From Los Angeles, CA 
“Themes arising from the Los Angeles Meeting:

1) Seems to be focused on managing public organizations, but what about leadership? Also, managing public organizations is not the same as public service. Most of today's students will switch jobs numerous times, and must be prepared to work in the public sector, the non-profit 
sector, and the private sector. 

2) Many programs already do self-assessment or continuous improvement on an ongoing basis. How will the move in emphasis to outcomes affect those programs? Mostly a matter of making expectations of student learning explicit and sharing student learning outcomes with relevant 
stakeholders.

3) It would be good as a next step to get students, employers, and other stakeholders involved for their feedback and ideas, and have sustained participation.”

Michelle Saint-Germain
Professor, Department of Public Policy and Admin 
California State University at Long Beach


From New York City, NY  
“Our group was in near-complete agreement with the guiding philosophy behind the new standards and liked the idea of separating standards from the bases for judgment. That said, much of the detail needs further development. The group was concerned about the profusion of individual items under Standard 6 (see pp. 17-18) and the difficulty of measuring some of the apparently mandatory outcomes. How are schools to ascertain that students upon graduation can “resolve conflict and negotiate” (p. 17) or “demonstrate self-knowledge” (p. 18)? While we praise the impulse to evaluate actual behavioral outcomes, we urge reevaluation of the likelihood that some of these mandates are susceptible to assessment upon completion of a degree program. 

We note too a pervasive problem throughout the document in the standards’ treatment of relationship between the degree programs NASPAA seeks to accredit and the departments and schools that house those degree programs. Faculty research, for example, is not driven by the degree program. It is incentivized (or not) by departments, schools, and universities. Student services are rarely, strictly speaking, a degree program responsibility; administrative units responsible for the degree program develop or share in resources designed to address job placement, professional development and other needs. The result is language in Standard 1 and elsewhere that freights programs with responsibilities that they cannot legitimately be expected to sustain, while the administrative vessels in which they sit can. This tension is not new in this draft – it is firmly in place in the current standards – but the new standards should address the problem.

Our group felt strongly that the review process would benefit from use of online tools, such as a wiki, to display and contain further discussion about the draft.”

David Birdsell
Dean, Baruch College 
City University of New York


From Oakland, MI
“The overall response to the new standards was positive. The faculty members present were happy to see the mission and competencies linked and the lack of repetition within the standards. The focus on core values – public service values – was important to this group. The faculty also thought it was important to ask programs to focus on relationship/communication skills. Overall the new standards will create a better foundation for students, will help market the degree but yet speak to a broader audience (i.e. public policy schools, etc.). The faculty present felt that the new standards would raise the bar for programs seeking accreditation. One summary statement was, “The new standards will allow programs to control their own destiny.”

C. Michelle Piskulich 
Associate Dean
College of Arts and Sciences
Oakland University


From San Francisco, CA 
“The San Francisco group liked the proposed standards in general. However, they feel that the five faculty rule should be incorporated back into the standards, as this has helped programs in the past gain the faculty they need. We also propose a requirement of 50% Ph.D. and 50% professionally qualified faculty for all accredited departments be incorporated into the standards and feel that the diversity standard is way too vague. In addition, we feel that the there is a real lack of definition for student competencies, including no way to really distinguish what are MPA competencies from competencies that might exist for other programs. Finally, ethics needs to be specifically included in the curriculum standards.”

Genie Stowers, PhD 
Chair, San Francisco State University


From Washington, DC  
“Overall the response from all present was that the proposed standards offer a great opportunity for us all. Many felt that the greater reliance on programs to demonstrate evidence that they achieved their objectives is a bit intimidating, and that successful practices will really need to be shared publicly. The greatest concern voiced by virtually all is that the definition of "academically qualified" faculty needs more clarification. And there was also a fair level of agreement that we don't know what evidence would suffice to demonstrate our students are taking "sustainable actions". We enjoyed a very productive conversation!”

Dr. Kathryn E. Newcomer 
Director, Ph.D. in Public Policy and Administration Program, 
The George Washington University