Developing a National Writing Centers Accrediting System
A General Proposal Presented to
The National Writing Centers Association

Barry M. Maid
Jeanne H Simpson
Joe Law

Board Meeting, March 29, 1996

PART I: RATIONALE FOR ACCREDITATION

    It is time to develop a national system of accreditation for writing centers. Such a system could increase the growing professionalism of writing centers while still respecting and encouraging their diversity Our professional literature and organizations attest to the great range of contexts where writing centers exist and to the many specialized needs these centers meet. Rather than imposing a single standard on all writing centers, the proposed accrediting system would focus on the individual writing center and its role within its own institutional setting

    Establishing a national accrediting system would help individual centers to evaluate and further develop their work systematically. More important, the self-assessment involved would also help strengthen the position of writing center administrators in promoting and defending their programs in times of struggle for institutional funding. To be accredited, a writing center would have had to demonstrate a consistent and coherent system of assessing itself and its services. Moreover, a national system would help develop a professional profile that should further professionalize writing center work

PART II: PROCEDURES

    Accreditation would be awarded by the NWCA on the recommendation of a team of NWCA representatives That recommendation would be based on an intensive self-study by the center requesting accreditation and a site visit by the NWCA team. Accreditation would be granted for 4 years and would be awarded at one of three levels: accreditation; accreditation with distinction leadership center

PART III: AREAS TO BE EXAMINED (not yet criteria)

An accredited writing center would have the following features:

1. a clearly articulated mission statement aligned with the mission statement of the institution;
2. a clearly defined means of assessing and reporting how well that mission is being met
3. an ongoing tutor-training program that includes a means of assessing the effectiveness of the training program and the tutoring that results from it (a center employing professionals rather than students could produce other sorts of credentials);
4. a director with appropriate professional status (i.e faculty or administrative rank), including an explicit job description and clear lines of reporting (if the directorship is a faculty position, its relationship to requirements for tenure and promotion should be addressed);
5. permanent funding;
6. physical facilities and equipment adequate for carrying out its stated mission