A Proposed Self-Study
Questionnaire for
Writing Center Accreditation

by
Dennis Paoli
Marcia Silver
Jo Koster

Submitted to
The Board of
The National Writing Centers Association
Detroit, Michigan
November 22, 1997

Introduction
At the Conference on College Composition Meeting in Phoenix in March 1997, the Board of the National Writing Centers Association decided that it was time to move forward with the development of a national system of accreditation for writing centers. Dennis Paoli of Hunter College, Marcia Silver of Portland State University, and Jo Koster Tarvers of Winthrop University volunteered to create a draft of an accreditation system for Board consideration. This report describes the accreditation system so imagined and presents a self-study questionnaire upon which accreditation decisions might be based. It also lays out some considerations and questions for follow-up action by the Board in the event that the proposed system is adopted.

History and Rationale
The subcommittee used as the basis for its work a proposal by Barry Maid, Jeanne Simpson, and Joe Law that was presented to the NWCA Board on March 29, 1996 (a copy of which is included with this packet). It also had the benefit of several long e-mail messages from Jeanne Simpson explaining the discussions that led up to this proposal and some of the interpretations on which it was based. The subcommittee also examined self-study materials used by NCATE and NCTE to assess English Education programs and by the Council of Writing Program Administrators to assess collegiate writing programs. (The latter appears as Appendix B of Developing Successful College Writing Programs by Edward M. White [Jossey-Bass, 1989] and was used by his kind permission.)

Three months of e-mail discussions were conducted in the late spring and summer of 1997 to develop a self-study questionnaire that might be used in the assessment of writing programs. Professor Muriel Harris generously consulted with us on the design and content of questions. Once the questionnaire was developed, it was circulated at the Park City NWCA meeting and posted on a web site for comment from the Writing Center community. The subcommittee is grateful to all those who provided feedback on the proposed draft, especially to Pamela Childers, Joan Mullin, Lady Falls Brown, Jennifer Jordan-Henley, Jane Smith, and Barry Maid for helping us clarify and improve both the ideas and their expression.

Criteria for Accreditation

The guiding assumptions behind this project are that accreditation 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 [sic] 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. (Maid et al., 1)

Based on these assumptions, the subcommittee decided that it would have to imagine an accreditation system that would not discriminate against a center because of its size, budget, equipment, or other characteristics. Rather, accreditation criteria would be needed that would assess how well each center fit into its individual institution and mission.

The questionnaire therefore begins with questions that define the institution and its mission: nature, size, location, institutional placement, number of clients served, and use of services. It next looks at staffing, to determine if it is adequate for the size, mission, and programs offered by the center. Next it looks at the kinds of services offered, both human and technological, then at the kinds of research and scholarship pursued by the center, its outreach programs, and its marketing efforts. Finally it looks at budgetary concerns, to determine whether there is adequate financial support for the center's work. As a supplement, each center seeking accreditation is offered the opportunity to add additional information about its own individual characteristics, so that what makes each center special can be reflected in its review.

The subcommittee knows that there are probably questions that cannot be answered in the brief space provided. Therefore, as part of the self-study, centers are invited to assemble up to 25 pages of supporting documentation to explain the work they do. This documentation might include sample handouts or marketing materials, syllabi or agendas from tutor training, organizational charts, transcripts of tutoring sessions--whatever the institution believes an outside reviewer should see in order to properly assess the work of this center. To save paper, the subcommittee recommends that this supporting material might be posted on a website for ease of access. Such a device would also allow the center to provide visual materials--for instance, a video clip of a tutoring session.

Levels of Accreditation
Since centers differ so widely in mission, staffing, and support, it is not likely that all will meet the same levels of accreditation. Acting upon the suggestion of the Maid report, the subcommittee recommends three levels of accreditation: Accreditation, Accreditation with Distinction, and Center of Excellence. Initial accreditation would be awarded for five years to centers meeting the criteria of the self-study. If their mission is coherent with the institutional mission; they have clear lines of authority and reporting; they have sufficient staffing, space, funding, and resources to meet their stated mission; they have clear policies and procedures; and they conduct self-assessment in a consistent and productive manner, they should receive initial accreditation.

If centers believe that they go beyond the basics, they ought to be eligible for higher levels of accreditation. The subcommittee has identified eleven areas in which a center might excel:

*outreach
*service to special needs users
*developmental services
*ESL services
*electronic services
*tutor training
*marketing
*development of original instructional materials
*writing across the curriculum / writing in the disciplines
*opportunities for research
*retention

Centers applying for accreditation should be able to select the categories in which they want special consideration. If they excel in three of these areas, they ought to be eligible for accreditation with distinction; if they excel in six of them, they ought to be accredited as a center of excellence that other centers might study and emulate. Reviewers might either agree or disagree with the submitting center's self-identified level of accreditation.

Process for Accreditation
The subcommittee debated at length over the merits of site visits in accreditation. It would be an advantage to actually see the center and its staff in action, and to discuss with administrators its mission and role in the institution. But such visits are expensive and difficult to facilitate. It is not clear whether institutions would be eager enough to obtain certification to pay for the cost of site visits. Bearing this in mind, the subcommittee suggests the following procedure.

1. An institution seeking NWCA accreditation will complete the self-study and assemble a dossier of supporting materials (which might be posted on a web site).

2. Three copies of the self-study questionnaire and dossier would be sent to NWCA, which would then assign a two-person accrediting team to read and review the materials. The submitting institution would not know the identity of these two reviewers, who ideally might come from similar sorts of centers, but probably should not come from the same area of the country as the submitting institution.

3. If the two reviewers agreed in their assessment of the center, they would forward a joint report to NWCA, which would then deliver an appropriate message to the institution.

4. If the two reviewers disagreed, or disagreed with the level of certification requested by the institution, their report would be forwarded to NWCA, which would assign a Board member to review the materials and report and adjudicate a decision. This decision would then be communicated back to NWCA and through it to the submitting institution.

5. Institutions denied accreditation or accreditation at the sought level would have 90 days to submit a rejoinder to the NWCA Board. The Board would review the material prior to its next meeting and vote at that meeting on the institution's accreditation status.

Such a review process ought to be able to be accomplished within three months of submission (except in the case of rejoinder), thus allowing the process to move expeditiously.

Further Action for NWCA
If this procedure for accreditation is adopted, NWCA will need to take a series of actions to put the basics in place. First, it will have to prepare a Handbook for Accreditation Seekers that defines the terms used in the questionnaire, explains the kinds of supporting documentation that might be supplied, and explains how accreditation might be granted. Second, NWCA will have to recruit and train accreditation reviewers; these reviewers will need to be familiarized with the proposed system. Third, NWCA will need to find ways to publicize the accreditation process and to create incentives for institutions to seek certification. Finally, it will need to decide on a process for re-certification after the initial five years expires.

Conclusion
Developing this questionnaire has not been easy, but it provides a basis for further conversation about accreditation. The subcommittee hopes that this report will help the Board move forward with the accreditation process, so that centers everywhere will have the opportunity for self-discovery, improvement, and validation of their efforts.

Members of the Subcommittee:

Dennis Paoli, Director
The Writing Center
416 Thomas Hunter Building
Hunter College
695 Park Avenue
New York NY 10024
dpaoli@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu

Marcia Silver, Writing Center Administrator
Department of English
Portland State University
P.O. Box 751
Portland OR 97207-0751
silverm@irn.pdx.edu

Jo Koster, Director
The Writing Center
Department of English
Winthrop University
Rock Hill SC 29733-0001
Kosterj@winthrop.edu

Go to the draft self-study questionnaire. Here it is as a .pdf file (requires Adobe Acrobat reader).