Accreditation
Cyndy J. Woods-Wilson
This chapter will compare current accreditation programs with respected scholar programs to determine the efficacy of various accreditation programs as they apply to successful student experiences that translate to postgraduation excellence. Higher education institutions rely on accreditation for various reasons. Among them are programmatic prestige, respect among organizations who hire their graduates, funding or financial aid resources, as well as enrollment of students with a greater opportunity to be successful both in the institution and in the work force. Currently the International Accreditation Organization (IAO) is working to provide interagency agreements regarding exchange of credits for students. It remains to be seen how quickly this can occur, as our world increasingly offers virtual education. Should the accreditation process provide a tiered approach, with multiyear reviews? Or should higher education look at established scholar programs, like Fulbright Scholars or Rhodes Scholars, to help determine what defines excellence?
What Is Accreditation?
Accreditation is generally agreed upon as an external measure of quality assurance that validates the work of a university as legitimate, providing education consistently at a high standard of academic value (Higher Learning Commission, IAO, U.S. Department of Education, Australian University Quality Agency, Japan University Accreditation). Depending on the country, several accreditation agencies may exist. Most commonly, the country’s education ministry or department is involved in issuing guidelines or performing the external auditing process. Students matriculating from an accredited institution find their credits easily transfer to other institutions as well as an automatic level of respect for their prior coursework.
Accreditation serves another purpose for the university or college. Typically the process of accreditation requires substantial data collected over time to show programmatic achievement. Faculty achievements are examined, as well as advanced degrees and publications within the respective fields. Students, staff, and faculty are deeply involved in a series of topics about not only programmatic quality but also inquiry into processes and findings, good and bad. Most accreditation processes in the United States are two-year evaluative processes. Hard data are assessed, examined, and processed by different teams within the university or college. Soft data, in the form of customer service, attitudes, environment, and customer feelings, are also examined and mined for potential improvements, small and large.
Additionally, degree-granting programs and certificate-granting programs are examined for their student successes, as well as contribution to the field. Do students use their knowledge and move into postgraduate research work? Do students use their knowledge within the field? Do students use certificate programs for career advancement?
Standard Accrediting Agencies
Throughout most of the world, government ministries or departments of education are tasked with oversight of colleges or universities. Australian universities are monitored through the Quality Assurance Framework established by the Australian Universities Quality Agency.1 Japanese universities and colleges are monitored through the Japanese University Accreditation Association.2
To avoid the duplication of accreditation layers within each country, the IAO formed to offer accreditation to both traditional brick-and-mortar campuses and the rapidly evolving online programs.3 The European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) noted the following in 2003:
Quality assurance in higher education is by no means only a European concern. All over the world there is an increasing interest in quality and standards, reflecting both the rapid growth of higher education and its cost to the public and the private purse.4
U.S. accreditation processes are offered through six regions established by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) and by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). Both are tasked with guidelines from the U.S. Department of Education. In the United States, accreditation not only carries scholastic merit but also enables the institution to be eligible for U.S.-backed federal student loans. This loan program allows many students access to costly higher education. Within the United States students can transfer to other accredited schools, space permitting.
Fulbright and Rhodes Scholars Accreditation Policies
Oxford University in England offers approximately 80 prestigious scholarships annually to applicants from 27 countries. Like the American Fulbright Scholarship, applicants come from a wide pool of intellectual programs. Postgraduates face a rigorous applicant process and examination of their undergraduate scholastic merit, as well as examination of their personal achievements and abilities.5 The Fulbright Scholarship is awarded based on academic excellence and eligibility requirements outlined in the Fulbright-Hays Act (public law 87-256).6 Both programs are noted worldwide as a measure of academic success and a precursor of academic and humanitarian successes. Yet both programs depend on the accreditation processes of undergraduate studies.
The Question of Accreditation
Established scholar programs such as the Rhodes Scholar and the Fulbright Scholar Programs begin their first screening of applicants with undergraduate degrees from accredited universities. Clearly merit is then involved in their selection process, but the initial screening remains as an effective indicator of postgraduate success. With globalization of industry, business, and human capital occurring exponentially, it behooves us to closely examine the accreditation practices to ensure some standard of academic rigor and educational quality.
The IAO is working to provide interagency agreements regarding exchange of credits for students. Inherent in these agreements is the explicit examination of academic material taught, examined, and learned. While no worldwide assessment tool exists (nor would this author want one), some level of basic academic achievement must be met for the exchange of credits to have value. Currently that value is acknowledged when undergraduate studies are submitted in an application for postgraduate studies. Another example of this valuation occurs in the United States with law degrees. U.S. law schools are ranked, and lawyers find positions based on the rank of the law school that they attended.
Another wrinkle in accreditation policies comes with the rapid rise of for-profit niche universities. They find and fill a niche that may take the typical university structure years to form an appropriate program. An example in the United States was the formation of many virtual nursing programs in the 1990s. Traditional brick-and-mortar schools found their nursing programs with long waiting lists. Virtual programs formed quickly and produced many registered nurses through nontraditional partnerships. As a result, 10 years later, there are more nurses in many urban areas than jobs.
Other for-profit universities suffer from a high faculty turnover rate. Faculty are hired as part-time associates or adjunct faculty. While their quality can be high, without a full-time position many leave for other positions. This affects the quality of the programs in some of the for-profit schools. Accreditation traditionally has not seen the faculty turnover rate that the rapid expansion of virtual education has exposed. This has set the stage for the evolution of accreditation processes in education.
The Purpose of Education and Accreditation
Traditionally, higher education produced intellectuals and researchers. As education became more available with the establishment of two-year colleges, four-year degrees became career pathways for many. Today, higher education serves multiple purposes, and multiple modalities provide higher education. The need for accreditation has intensified, not just to ensure quality, but to help institutions refine and redesign their purpose. Does the school purposely prepare students for the workforce, or is the school purposely preparing scholars for research?
Technical, vocational, and trade schools respond to market needs. Mechanical and technology trades continue to evolve, while construction trades slow with the advent of technology that displaces workers. Business acumen and student workplace success become the most visible accreditation for these necessary schools.
What about other market needs? As this is written, some community colleges (two-year degree granting) are announcing new programs in environmental sustainability. The program teaches the student the basics of wind, solar, and green technology. Clearly in the United States, this responds to market needs. Over the 10-year cycle of accreditation, this program may no longer exist. Yet it will have filled a niche market in a timely fashion.
The aforementioned nursing program niche was developed to train more nurses to fill the gap between market needs and available employees. This type of schooling is career based, as are the technical and trade schools. While quality of nurses is critical to life, some might argue that technical expertise is as well. Is there ever a good time for medical machines to break? Or what happens when your hard drive crashes or the server at work fails? Are the people who keep these items running any less skilled than the nurse? In essence, quality education matters, and accreditation needs have changed.
The Future of Accreditation
We need scholars. We need statesmen who have the chance to bring peace and understanding worldwide, as is the mission of the Rhodes Scholars. We need Fulbrighters to learn, spread their joy of learning, and continue their scholarly research. Yet both programs rely on accreditation of the undergraduate programs from which the scholars came. We also need highly trained technical people who will invent, tweak, care for, manage, and create technology that will improve the ways we exist in our world. And we need continuing education for practitioners of any craft. These are all different tiers of today’s education reality. The world hasn’t stopped evolving and neither should education.
Yet that evolution hasn’t become apparent in the practices of accreditation. While a multiple approach is necessary, it has yet to become a reality. We seem to have the scholarly approach, but the reality of technical schools and continuing education is still under the umbrella of scholarly practice. Without a worldwide, multitier accreditation approach, education will remain out of reach for many, as scholarly classes and research are required for the four-year degree, even when a two-year degree, intensely focused on a current need, would be more practical.