Here is an article that I found on art program accreditation

College Majors Visual Arts and Film Majors
1

<p>By Jelise Balon
ArtSchools.com Contributing Writer
August 12, 2005 </p>

<p>Accreditation is a word you may see a lot as you begin your search for the right art school. So what does it mean? And why is it important to you?
Accreditation is a voluntary process by which an academic institution is reviewed and evaluated by an independent board of peers. The reviewing board or agency assesses how that institution measures against established educational objectives and standards. If an institution is granted accredited status, it signifies that they have met the qualifying standards and goals. To put it simply – it is a seal of approval. </p>

<p>The top accrediting agency for art schools is known as the National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD). NASAD was founded in 1944 and is under the umbrella organization the Council of Arts Accrediting Associations (CAAA) which also governs accrediting organizations for schools of dance, theater and music. NASAD is recognized by the United States Department of Education as the agency responsible for the accreditation of all art and design curricula. </p>

<p>The standards of accreditation used by NASAD were developed by their members, which includes mostly art school faculty and administrators. The purpose of these standards is not to restrict what an art institute can teach or how they structure their program, but simply to provide a framework for analysis. According to their website, “NASAD has developed standards and associated guidelines which are specific enough to ensure a certain level of educational quality, but are not so restrictive as to stifle experimentation, innovation, and individuality of program content.” </p>

<p>So, why should a prospective art student care if they attend an accredited school? </p>

<p>Schools which undergo the accreditation process, and ultimately receive accreditation, are usually looked upon as maintaining a high level of academic strength and integrity. Because accreditation is not required, those institutions who submit to the process publicly acknowledge the importance of peer review and certain educational standards. </p>

<p>“The advantage of attending an accredited art school is that a student can feel a level of comfort that this is an institution that has been looked at by professionals familiar with the art profession,” says Stephen Beal, provost for California College of the Arts. “Students can feel confident that they will receive a well-rounded and balanced education. </p>

<p>“Institutions providing art and design education that aren’t accredited may have a more narrowly focused education and won’t provide as integrative of an approach,” adds Beal. </p>

<p>Accreditation also encourages and facilitates academic and curriculum improvement. Maintaining accreditation is an on-going process, therefore schools with current accreditation must submit to regular review. </p>

<p>“Accrediting bodies make sure an institution is spending resources dedicated to educational effectiveness and is consistent with the mission of the organization,” said Beal. </p>

<p>Other accrediting bodies for art schools include: the Foundation for Interior Design Education Research (FIDER), which accredits interior design colleges and programs; the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology (ACCSCT), which accredits postsecondary career schools; and the Accrediting Commission for Community and Precollegiate Arts Schools (ACCPAS), which accredits non-degree granting schools and programs for youth and adults. </p>

<p>In addition to the program-focused accreditation we’ve been discussing, there are also six regional collegiate accrediting boards. These include: the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. Each of these associations accredits schools and colleges within a specific geographical region. These associations review the school and its academic programs as a whole, they are not degree or program specific, and therefore you will find that many art schools will have accreditation by both NASAD and one of the above listed regional bodies. </p>

<p>Accreditation by one of the regional bodies is important because it often determines a school’s eligibility to participate in federal financial aid programs. Additionally, accreditation by one of the six regional organizations is important for the acceptance and transfer of college credit, and it is a prerequisite for many graduate programs. </p>

<p>Finding out whether an art school has been accredited is usually pretty easy. Almost all schools publicly list which, if any, associations they are accredited by. Most often this information can be found on the school’s website. However, if you are unable to locate this on the web, simply call the school’s admission office for more information.</p>

2

<p>Taxguy,
This is exactly why my D chose to apply to schools which were both NASAD and FIDER accredited. At the time she thought she might major in interior design but has since changed her major. I still do not understand why RISD is not FIDER accredited.</p>

<p>Cama</p>

3

<p>CAMA, You are right. I can't imagine why RISD isn't FIDER accredited either. It is bewildering.</p>

4

<p>It isn't bewildering. It's of no consequence one way or the other. RISD has a fine reputation without the politically-charged world of FIDER butting their head into the picture, and the education students receive there is going to be just as strong with or without this arbitrary stamp of approval.</p>

5

<p>Jkolko,
Yes RISD is a great school but I do not know anything specific about their Int. DEs Dept. Do you think that having specific guidelines and standards for any educational institution is a negative including all public schools elementary, middle and HS? Do you have any particular experience or knowledge about FIDER and do you feel the same way about NASAD accredidation as well? Just trying to have some dialogue here in a friendly manner yet your response seems so "heated".
Cama</p>

6

<p>Cama, just wait till RA replies.</p>

7

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>The "heated" nature of the response is, again, in response to taxguy's holier-than-thou attitude that he continually presents in this public forum. No offense intended to you.</p>

8

<p>KanKsmom,
I am assuming you mean RainingAgain. I am sure that will make for some interesting discussions. I just hope as I stated ,RA also will be able to keep everything friendly and have an open mind.
Cama</p>

9

<p>Jokolko,
It's funny I have been conversing with Taxguy for a long time and never got that impression. In fact when other views were presented he seemed to respond in a thoughtful manner. Please relax and I appreciate that you meant no offense to me, none was taken. Please answer my question about FIDER and NASAD I truly am interested in your opinion as I seem to remember that you are a professor.
Thanks,
Cama</p>

10

<p>Jkolko, frankly, I can't have a "holier- than- thou" attitude since I am an agnostic. LOL</p>

<p>Actually, what is wrong with wanting NASAD or FIDER accreditation? I simply reprinted an article whose author thought that these accreditations were important. I NEVER made a statement about the article, and yet you flame.</p>

11

<p>//Schools which undergo the accreditation process, and ultimately receive accreditation, are usually looked upon as maintaining a high level of academic strength and integrity. Because accreditation is not required, those institutions who submit to the process publicly acknowledge the importance of peer review and certain educational standards.//</p>

<p>Cool. SCAD is accredited by SACS.</p>

12

<p>Hey Cama, How is your daughter doing at Pratt? Does she like her profs? Any further comments now that she is into her second year?</p>

13

<p>RainingAgain, what is SACS and if you know, could you tell me how it differs from a NASAD accreditation? Sorry, but I am new to all of these acronyms! Thanks.</p>

14

<p><a href="http://www.sacs.org/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sacs.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

15

<p>Have you ever been audited? Imagine the hours of paperwork, the scrutiny of preparing all of your written documents, making sure you don't forget to cross a t or dot an i ... </p>

<p>Now, imagine that audit happening every five years, and you aren't you: you are a corporation of several thousand people. Can you think of the amount of time, energy, and irritation that must go into preparing the busywork-style documentation? </p>

<p>And, just to push the obvious metaphor a bit further, what are the consequences of your personal audit, if it turns out you made a mistake and did something wrong? You get fined, perhaps, or a slap on the wrist. </p>

<p>When an accrediting agency (SACS, FIDER, NASAD, whatever) comes to visit your campus, they have the right to look through anything and everything. From the way you spend your money to the type of light fixtures in your hallways, the agency can look at any of that critically. And, while you certainly may not have anything to hide, it is hard to make certain that any organization has all of their ducks in a row. What happens if something is amiss? A slap on the wrist? Or you lose accreditation - which, in and of itself, is not a big deal, until you begin to read this accreditation as the end-all stamp of approval that some people on this board seem to think it holds. </p>

<p>An accreditation agency is not necessary if consumers of education are educated. Accreditation implies a base level of standard which should be implicit in quality education (said another way, we should be doing all of the things an accrediting body looks for automatically if we are going to call ourselves educators). </p>

<p>Additionally, I highly doubt that anyone on this board (or in much of academia) actually understands what the accreditation standards <em>are</em>. In fact, they are very, very, very loose. From the NASAD standards manuel [<a href="http://nasad.arts-accredit.org/site/docs/NASAD%20Handbook%202003-2004%20PDF/NASAD%20HANDBOOK%202005-2006.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://nasad.arts-accredit.org/site/docs/NASAD%20Handbook%202003-2004%20PDF/NASAD%20HANDBOOK%202005-2006.pdf&lt;/a&gt;], relating to Industrial Design, I quote some fairly mundane statements, like:</p>

<p>==</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Curricular Structure Curricular structure, content, and time requirements shall enable students to develop the range of knowledge, skills, and competencies expected of those holding a professional baccalaureate degree in industrial design. Curricula to accomplish this purpose normally adhere to the following guidelines: studies in industrial design comprise 30–35% of the total program; supportive courses in design, related technologies, and the visual arts, 25–30%; studies in art and design history, 10–15%; and general studies and electives, 25–30%. Studies in industrial design; supportive courses in design, related technologies, and the visual arts; and studies in art and design histories normally total at least 65% of the curriculum. </p></li>
<li><p>Recommendations for General Studies (in addition to those stated for all undergraduate degree programs) Concepts and facts from the physical and natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities are important for industrial designers. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>==</p>

<p>Essentially, the guidelines are incredibly loose, while the accreditation "checks" are incredibly paperwork driven. That is, an institution will prepare for months prior to one of these accreditation visits, and what do they gain in return? The "oppourtunnity" to pay dues to the accreditation board. </p>

<p>But, the annoyance of an accreditation visit is not my problem with accrediting boards. For this, I present a much more thoughtful and well written article by Carroll Gantz, FIDSA, partially cut and pasted below. </p>

<p>Thanks. </p>

<p>==</p>

<p><a href="http://www.core77.com/reactor/id_certification_gantz.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.core77.com/reactor/id_certification_gantz.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Article
Industrial Design Education:
Does it meet professional standards?
by Carroll Gantz, FIDSA</p>

<p>Many professionals would respond with a resounding "no!" While there are always outstanding students who excel, the majority are ill-prepared, both technically and motivationally, to perform adequately in the field for which they have been trained. They often find it difficult or impossible to find a position. If they do, they often require several years of re-training and experience to achieve minimal productivity. Few have a sense of the business world at all, let alone the ability to establish their own independent firm. In a market where computer-aided design skills are highly valued, few graduates are proficient. Verbal and written presentation skills are often non-existent. Most sadly of all, many are unrealistic in their own expectations and oblivious to the expectations of their employers or prospective clients.</p>

<p>For students and parents paying over $100,000 to programs recommended by the profession and accredited by the National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD), with the tacit understanding that such a degree is not only a career entry, but one with prestige and respect; the job market reality is demoralizing, to say the least. At worst, they feel cheated. Practitioners in the field should feel outraged.</p>

<p>While education is always complex, the general problem is fairly obvious. The profession of industrial design has changed radically over the last 50 years. Downsizing has reduced available positions, thus increasing the need to be entrepreneural. Manual skills of drawing and modeling have been replaced by computer technology. Individual expression needs to be tempered with multidisciplinary teamwork and understanding of business practices. At the end of the century, design is no longer art, and there are no more patrons. Design is business.</p>

<p>Yet after the same 50 years, industrial design education has remained virtually unchanged. Applicants are still selected on the basis of their potential "artistic" skills, attitudes and motivations. Several years of artistic study are still often required before "real" design education begins. Esthetics and design theory are valued far beyond technical or business essentials.</p>

<p>Some things in education have changed, but not for the better. Tuition-driven enrollment policies breed quantity rather than quality, and rampant grade inflation allows even poor performers to graduate with high grades.</p>

<p>Tenured faculty, most educated in the 1960s, often instill in students their own self-indulgent and anti-business attitudes. They are, by and large, not practitioners, but theorists.</p>

<p>Why has design education failed to keep pace with the changed needs of the profession? Why are there so many graduates who cannot perform at entry level? Answers lie in several specific and endemic inadequacies of the system itself, some of them intractable.</p>

<p>First is the terminal disease of tenure. Most non-academics simply cannot imagine the union-like power of tenured faculty over university administrations. Their defense against change is to award tenure to the politically obedient, rather than those innovating new skills, ideas or curricula, thus rewarding mediocrity and the status quo. Bottom line is: tenured faculty, no matter how incompetent, outmoded and/or extraneous, simply cannot be fired. Many department budgets consist mostly of inflated tenured faculty salaries, in spite of low teaching loads. So, many junior faculty are needed to carry the actual load, while little remains for equipment, supplies or facilities. On top of this, tenured faculty initiate costly graduate programs, not because they are of interest to the profession, but because they produce new junior faculty, are prestigious in academia, and of course, employ tenured faculty. This is why tuition is so high, and why downsizing, the key to productivity, is not feasible. With this anachronistic tenure system, educational change is unlikely.</p>

<p>Second, there is no internal mechanism to measure the effective performance of graduates in the profession. NASAD focuses on criteria such as facilities, faculty salaries, budgets, and credit hours; not student performance. NASAD evaluation teams are primarily educators chosen by educators. The Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA), which from 1970 to 1984 operated its own independent School Recognition Program with practitioner evaluation as part of it, no longer does so. With no internal criteria or measurement of professional performance, educational change is unlikely.</p>

<p>[ ... ]</p>

<p>Then, professional educators took over. By 1948, there were 22 programs teaching industrial design, which together, formed what would become the National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD), and implemented accreditation of all art and design programs. It continues to do so, and since 1984, publishes, but does not enforce, entry-level performance standards developed by IDSA.</p>

<p>So, why shouldn't IDSA, the only national organization representing the industrial design profession, assume the responsibility of additional action needed to produce a genuine market influence for educational change?</p>

16

<p>Incidentally:</p>

<p>Six regional accreditation boards exist:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools.
Accreditation of colleges in the middle states region (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico).</p></li>
<li><p>The New England Association of Schools & Colleges.
Accreditation of colleges in the New England region (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont).</p></li>
<li><p>The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.
Accreditation of colleges in the north central region (Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, New Mexico, South Dakota, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Wyoming).</p></li>
<li><p>The Northwest Association Of Schools And Colleges.
Accreditation of colleges in the north west region (Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.)</p></li>
<li><p>The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.
Accreditation of colleges in the southern region (Alabama , Florida , Georgia , Kentucky , Louisiana , Mississippi , North Carolina , South Carolina , Tennessee , Texas , Virginia)</p></li>
<li><p>The Western Association of Schools and Colleges.
Accreditation of colleges in the western region.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>A school generally requires regional accreditation to allow for national scholarships and funding and things like that, so while the name implies a lower level, the regional accreditation is really the most important one. </p>

<p>In addition to a regional accreditation, a school can try to become nationally accredited in a certain field (if they wish to do so). FIDER, NASAD, NAAB, and other boards accredit programs on a national level. </p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
Have you ever been audited?

[/quote]
Yes, it's going on right now by the North Central Association. It is indeed a PITA, which happens every 10 years. An accreditation review of an entire college or university is far more comprehensive and complex than the review of a particular program. Also, of course, general accreditation of a college or university by a regional association does not substitute for or cover the accreditation review of particular programs by professional associations. Particular professional programs (medicine, public administration, social work, architecture, etc.) need to have separate accreditation reviews by appropriate accrediting groups. So even if the college/university as a whole is accredited by a regional accrediting board some of their individual programs may fail to win accreditation (or reaccreditation) in their own professions.</p>

18

<p>Taxguy,
I will post my Pratt response under the Pratt thread.</p>

<p>cama</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
I still do not understand why RISD is not FIDER accredited.

[/quote]
I asked my daughter about this today, since she's home for the holidays. Although she did not have specific information about accreditation, she said that RISD's program is not an "interior design" program but instead "interior architecture." It tends to focus more on structural design issues rather than decorative. She also said that the program isn't very large (which, IMO, may also be a function of the fact that it's not as attractive to potential interior designers given the lack of accreditation).</p>

20

<p>Mackinaw, I think you are exactly correct. RISD would probably have a much bigger interior archtecture program if it were FIDER accredited. You should suggest that.</p>