1 / 11

Brief Review of U.S. Accreditation

Brief Review of U.S. Accreditation. Institutional Regionals: NWACS, WASC (Jr., Sr.); SACS; HLC; MSACHE; NEASC National (primarily for profit) (ACCSCT); (ACICS); (DECT); ACCET; (COE); (NACCAS) National (religious): ATS; AARTS; TRACS

gyala
Download Presentation

Brief Review of U.S. Accreditation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Brief Review of U.S. Accreditation • Institutional • Regionals: NWACS, WASC (Jr., Sr.); SACS; HLC; MSACHE; NEASC • National (primarily for profit) (ACCSCT); (ACICS); (DECT); ACCET; (COE); (NACCAS) • National (religious): ATS; AARTS; TRACS • Specialized such as AMA, ABA, CACREP, NCATE, ACCSCB, etc. (70) • Recognition: USDOE, CHEA • Collaboratives: C-RAC, CRNAA, ASPA

  2. NCHEMS Survey Findings on State Uses of Accreditation • 6 states say they “Accredit” institutions, 14 “Approve,” 4 “Authorize, 3 “Certify,” 1 “Oversees,” 1 “Registers,” and the remainder “License” • 30 states require private Not-for-Profit and For-Profit institutions to be accredited in order to operate; 16 do not require this; 4 require this only for Degree-Granting institutions • Varying rules on how long a candidate institution can operate while it seeks accreditation

  3. Relationship Between Institutional Accreditation and Authorization • 21 states require new Non-Public institutions to be accredited in order to be authorized, 11 more only to be Degree-Granting institutions • All but 6 States require Out-of-States to be accredited to operate in the state, but they sometimes require additional state agency review • Public institutions are authorized to operate by their Charters, but 24 states have additional regulations or statutes requiring them to be accredited (3 more for Community Colleges only)

  4. Relationship Between Institutional Accreditation and Other State Activities • 28 states require Non-Public institutions to be accredited to receive state funds, 7 have no linkage, 6 report that it depends on the funding program…the rest do not provide state funds to Non-Public institutions at all • 16 states have transfer policies affecting all institutions, 9 of which require accreditation • 22 states have transfer policies affecting only Public institutions, none of which require accreditation • 6 states require programmatic accreditation for credits to transfer in accreditable disciplines

  5. What Should States Ask Accreditors to Do? • Primary role in examining academic quality (especially at the undergraduate level) • Accreditation has played that role prominently through steadily escalating requirements on the assessment of student learning outcomes • States are counting on accreditors to play this role so they do not need to revert to mandating assessment as they did in the 1980s

  6. Public Policy Expectations • Higher Education Act left accreditation largely unchanged • Emerging Department of Education agenda (consumer interests); IG (credits) • Congressional Hearings (fraud and abuse) • But accountability continues to drive • Performance/National Goals/Costs; K-12 policies • State and Regional Initiatives: NGA, SHEEO, NCHEMS, etc.

  7. Accreditation as Public Policy Tool • Responsive to major public policy shifts (e.g., access, community colleges, off-campus/distance education, focus on diversity, etc.); acceptance of institutional diversity • Highly cost effective process for Title IV purposes • Acceptance (however, diminishing over last two decades) • Relatively healthy triad, but with increasing federal directives • Less responsive to states

  8. Accreditation’s “Deputized” Policy Role • Accreditation was never designed to do the things in policy that it is currently asked to do • Federal role as “Inspector” for Title IV • State roles in authorization to operate, receipt of state funds, and credit transfer • Limitations of a membership organization • Undercapitalized and understaffed • Site visit/review process not focused on “catching wrongdoing”

  9. Fit for Public Purposes? • Confidentiality in era of accountability • Peer review excludes some key stakeholders: employers, students, etc. • Poor fit of institutional model to blurring boundaries: partnerships, contracting • Capacity to understand challenges in for-profit models • Dogged by role in Title IV fraud and abuse of 1980s and early 90s; inadequate to the task • Technologically challenged

  10. Health of Institutional Support? • D.C. orgs. concern about accreditation. • Ambivalence about involvement of for-profits with large online operations; acquisitions and mergers • Strength of connectivity: how well does an agency listen? • Acceptance of increased agency oversight of institutional changes as dictated by DOE? • Off-site education; expansion of elearning; International ventures; collaboratives and partnering • Problems with boundaries and borders • Basically: Cost/benefit ratio

  11. Is It Time to Re-Assess Accreditation’s Policy Role? • May be at a juncture similar to 1992 when the National Policy Board (NPB) proposed sweeping changes to accreditation • Gatekeeper role re-assessed? • Multiple levels of accreditation? • Accreditation by institutional type rather than region? • National qualifications framework for learning outcomes in place and adopted by accreditors? • But who would lead the charge?

More Related