|
|
 |
Home
> Accreditation
> NASPAA Standard 2009
> Steering Committee’s Critical Questions
NASPAA STANDARDS 2009:
Defining Quality in
Public Affairs Education
Steering Committee Key Questions
Assessment
- To what extent should NASPAA continue to rely on mission-based approached to accreditation, where a program is held accountable to its own mission statement? Or are there areas in which you believe NASPAA needs to go beyond its mission-based approach, and prescribe specific criteria in evaluating programs?
- How should we address the complexity and diversity between member programs, especially in light of unique delivery methods?
- Should NASPAA accreditation be formative and consultative, or summative and evaluative?
- Do input measures (5 faculty rule, 50% rule) have any place in future standards?
- Will a shift towards outcomes measurement provide an adequate gauge of quality within our programs? To what level should we incorporate this assessment trend in the new standards?
- What should the value-added be of the MPP/MPA degree?
Competencies and Curriculum
- Which trends in the public affairs world should inform new standards? Which competencies does the multi-sectoral workforce actively seek?
- Which are the most important evidence-based trends that affect the core curriculum? How should students demonstrate competency?
- Is the concept of the core curriculum something we will maintain? What will the principal changes be?
- Should communication and interpersonal skills be included in the public affairs core curriculum?
- Which skills set MPA/MPP graduates apart from other degree recipients (MBA, JD) and how can we ensure broadly that the degrees remain relevant and competitive?
Broad Questions
- What do we want “NASPAA accredited” to mean in the year 2009?
- How will we address diversity issues in the new standards?
- Should international programs be included in the NASPAA accreditation process?
Process
- What types of standards or procedures currently prevent programs from seeking and benefiting from accreditation? Are they meaningful?
- To what extent should we demonstrate increased accountability and/or transparency to public constituencies? Which data will we make available? What level of confidentiality should we retain?
- Should NASPAA move towards a longer accreditation period? Should we add continuous improvement measures/requirements?
- Should a regular process be established to obtain feedback on NASPAA Standards?
- Should NASPAA create an accreditation candidacy program?
|
