Skip to main content

NACEP Accreditation

Accreditation

The Boise State Concurrent Enrollment Program is accredited by the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP). NACEP is the sole accrediting body for concurrent enrollment partnerships. NACEP ensures that college courses offered by high school instructors are as rigorous as courses taught by faculty on the sponsoring college campus.

2018-2019 School Year Required Evidence

2017 National Concurrent Enrollment Partnership Standards and Evidence

Partnership Standards

Standard Description and Evidence
Partnership 1 (P1) The concurrent enrollment program aligns with the college/university mission and is supported by the institution’s administration and academic leadership.

Required Evidence:

  1. Organization chart that shows how and where the concurrent enrollment program fits into the institution.

  2. Description of concurrent enrollment staff structure, including services provided by other departments of the college/university.

  3. A listing of all Faculty Liaisons by discipline and a description of Faculty Liaison role, including comprehensive faculty liaison procedures and practice guide or handbook.

  4. College/university mission statement, strategic plan or other guiding document and description of how the concurrent enrollment program aligns. Both Program Director and Chief Academic Officer will sign the NACEP Partnership Form or provide a letter that both individuals sign.

Partnership 2 (P2) The concurrent enrollment program has ongoing collaboration with secondary school partners.

Required Evidence:

  1. A description of the ongoing collaboration between partners and the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder. Include evidence that supports the collaboration, such as event materials, stakeholder survey results, partner meeting minutes, or advisory board feedback.

  2. A sample Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or partnership agreement, if available, between the college/university and district or high school. If not available, description of the process under which a school/district leadership and concurrent enrollment program establish a partnership and the extent of the relationship.
Faculty 1 (F1) All concurrent enrollment instructors are approved by the appropriate college/university academic leadership and must meet the minimum qualifications for instructors teaching the course on campus.

Required Evidence:

  1. Description of the process and timeline for appointing, approving, or denying concurrent enrollment instructors, and how the process is publicized or made available to high school partners.

  2. Listing of minimum instructor credentials by course or discipline and a description of the process by which those qualifications are established by the institution’s academic leadership.

  3. Three completed samples of concurrent enrollment instructor applications, representing varied departments, that include documents required by the concurrent enrollment program (with secure information removed) and corresponding approval/appointment letters listing course/s for which instructor is approved.
Faculty 2 (F2) Faculty Liaisons at the college/university provide all new concurrent enrollment instructors with course-specific training in course philosophy, curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment prior to the instructor teaching the course.

Required Evidence:

  1. For each discipline, a sample of course-specific training materials and agenda for new concurrent enrollment instructor training

  2. For each of these examples, a description written by the faculty liaison of how new instructors are trained. Include a description on how the materials provided for evidence are used.

  3. Attendance tracking report documenting the date each new concurrent enrollment instructor received initial course-specific training.
Faculty 3 (F3) Concurrent enrollment instructors participate in college/university provided annual discipline-specific professional development and ongoing collegial interaction to further enhance instructors’ pedagogy and breadth of knowledge in the discipline.

Required Evidence:

  1. An example from the professional development activities of each discipline, such as: seminar description and materials, event minutes, conference report, or individualized meeting summary.

  2. For each discipline a description of how the example of the concurrent enrollment program’s annual professional development further enhances course-content and delivery knowledge and/or addresses research and development in the field. This description should include the format, delivery method, frequency, and an explanation of how annual professional development is distinct from new instructor training.

  3. Procedures and/or policy describing how the concurrent enrollment program ensures and tracks professional development participation, and follows up with those who do not attend. A tracking report documenting when each concurrent enrollment instructor most recently participated in annual professional development.

Faculty 4 (F4) The concurrent enrollment program ensures instructors are informed of and adhere to program policies and procedures.

Required Evidence:

  1. A comprehensive concurrent enrollment instructor procedures and practice guide.

  2. A description of the concurrent enrollment program’s administrative orientation for new instructors, including agenda, materials, and format.

  3. A copy of the procedures for instructor non-compliance. If you have had a non-compliant instructor/s, please provide documentation of the process followed.
Assessment 1 (A1) The college/university ensures concurrent enrollment students’ proficiency of learning outcomes is measured using comparable grading standards and assessment methods to on-campus sections.

Required Evidence:

  1. A Statement of Equivalency written by each discipline’s faculty liaison that follows the NACEP Statement of Equivalency Guidelines. A standard response is not appropriate.

  2. . Paired student assessment tools from on-campus and concurrent enrollment sections – one paired example from each discipline for side-by-side comparisons (such as final exam, lab exercise, essay assignment, or grading rubric).
Curriculum 1 (C1) Courses administered through a concurrent enrollment program are college/university catalogued courses with the same departmental designations, course descriptions, numbers, titles, and credits

Required Evidence:

  1. A publicly available list of all courses offered through the concurrent enrollment program with descriptions that are linked to the college/university course catalog.
Curriculum 2 (C2) The college/university ensures the concurrent enrollment courses reflect the learning objectives, and the pedagogical, theoretical and philosophical orientation of the respective college/university discipline.

Required Evidence:

  1. Paired syllabi from on campus and concurrent enrollment sections from one course per discipline, with the learning objectives highlighted.

  2. A Statement of Equivalency for each discipline written by each discipline’s faculty liaison that follows the NACEP Statement of Equivalency Guidelines. A standard response is not appropriate.

Curriculum 3 (C3) Faculty Liaisons conduct site visits to observe course content and delivery, student discourse and rapport to ensure the courses offered through the concurrent enrollment program are equivalent to the courses offered on campus.

Required Evidence:

  1. A description of what happens during a typical site visit and an explanation of how site visits are used to provide feedback from college/university faculty to concurrent enrollment program instructors.

  2. A description of how site visits are tracked by the concurrent enrollment program and an explanation of the concurrent enrollment program-defined site visit frequency of (1) first-time instructors and (2) veteran instructors.

  3. Provide tracking documentation that lists the most recent site visit date for each instructor and the name of the site visitor and title.

  4. One site visit report representing each discipline performed by a faculty member with content knowledge of the discipline.
Student 1 (S1) Registration and transcript policies and practices for concurrent enrollment students are consistent with those on campus.

Required Evidence:

  1. Official letter from the college/university registrar verifying compliance with the standard.

  2. Sample student transcript from the college/university with identifying information redacted.

  3. Registration calendar(s) for concurrent enrollment, with explanations of any notable differences in registration, add/drop, and withdrawal timeframes compared with those for on-campus students.
Student 2 (S2) The concurrent enrollment program has a process to ensure students meet the course prerequisites of the college/university.

Required Evidence:

  1. Published outline of the registration process and sample application provided to students and schools, including any prerequisites for each college/university course offered for concurrent enrollment.

  2. Description of process used to verify that students meet prerequisites
Student 3 (S3) Concurrent enrollment students are advised about the benefits and implications of taking college courses, as well as the college’s policies and expectations.

Required Evidence:

  1. Provide example materials addressing topics including, but not limited to:

    • College/university student conduct policies such as academic integrity, consequences of  plagiarism, and academic dishonesty;

    • Advising issues such as college programs of study, prerequisites, pre-testing, course load, grading standards, and credit transferability;

    • Enrollment processes such as course cancellations and registration;

    • Legal rights under FERPA and ADA; and

    • Impact on future financial aid.

  2. Description of the process of advising students, including format, delivery method, timeline, who conducts advising, and what information is provided.
Student 4 (S4) The college/university provides, in conjunction with secondary partners, concurrent enrollment students with suitable access to learning resources and student support services.

Required Evidence:

  1. A description and documented evidence of the learning resources available to concurrent enrollment students, and how they are informed.

  2. A description and documented evidence of the student support services available to concurrent enrollment students, and how they are informed.
Evaluation 1 (E1) The college/university conducts end-of-term student course evaluations for each concurrent enrollment course to provide instructors with student feedback.

Required Evidence:

  1. Survey instrument. If there is variation among departments, submit one sample of each type of evaluation instrument used.

  2. Sample of an evaluation report that instructors receive regarding the college/university course. If there is variation among departments, submit one sample for each type of evaluation report used.

  3. Description of process used to share student course evaluation results with concurrent enrollment instructors and faculty liaisons, as well as any follow-up actions that the concurrent enrollment program may take based on the results.
Evaluation 2 (E2) The college/university conducts and reports regular and on-going evaluations of the Concurrent Enrollment Program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

Required Evidence:

  1. Provide a detailed report describing a research study or set of evaluations that the concurrent enrollment program conducted within the last two academic years prior to applying. This report should include abstract, introduction, methodology, results, and discussion sections. Provide the research instrument, as appropriate.

  2. Describe how the results and any improvement plans are being communicated with the college and school leadership, as well as how will the program continues to track whether the improvement plan is yielding beneficial results.

  3. Describe the types and frequency of program evaluation methods used by the program to assess student success, impact on school partners and/or other program goals.