0.5 Machado, c., & Cline, d. (april 2010). faculty perceptions:  (Page 4/6)

NCATE Accreditation status, affiliation status and Carnegie classification status were chosen as grouping variables. The researchers operated under the assumption that NCATE accredited institutions are more likely to enforce implementation of the standards than those institutions that are not accredited. Similarly, it was assumed that the size and breadth of programs could influence not just programs receptivity to change and reform initiatives, but also the manner in which standards are implemented within the programs. A series of one way Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) between group tests were run to test the validity of these assumptions.

Based on NCATE accreditation status (full, probational/conditional, none) there was a significant difference in the degree to which faculty perceived that their programs were aligned with Standards 5 [F (2, 209) = 3.649, p = .028] and standard 6 [F (2, 209) = 3.303, p = .039]. The effect size, calculated using eta-squared, was .13, .12 respectively. On average, faculty who worked for institutions that were not accredited by NCATE perceived that their programs were better aligned to Standards 5 (acting with integrity, fairness and ethics) and 6 (influencing larger political, social, economic, legal and cultural context) than faculty at NCATE accredited institutions. This phenomenon can be explained in a number of ways. One plausible explanation for this is that institutions that wish to maintain their full accreditation status have to undergo rigorous external and impartial reviews by professionals and community representatives. Given this scrutiny by an external representative and enforcer of the standards, it is highly probable that faculty who work at institutions with full NCATE accreditation evaluate their programs more critically than do faculty who work at institutions that are not accredited by NCATE. Another explanation could be that faculty who work at institutions that are not accredited by NCATE have greater flexibility, can experiment more, and therefore feel more confident about the degree to which their programs align with the standards. Either way, dialogue between institutions that are accredited by NCATE and those that are not could lead to an exchange of ideas and further enhancement of program to standards alignment.