Accreditation for Higher Institutions - Essay Example

Accreditation for Higher s Summary of Topic and Articles Used The American Educational System allows for the running of both public and private schools. Differentiating the private and public school system, Net Industries (2011) explain that “Private schools (sometimes known as nonpublic schools) exist in the United States as corporate entities separate from public schools, which are supported by the government.” The private and public school systems have run concurrently in the United States for a very long time. “In 1925, the Supreme Court ruled, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, that states could not compel children to attend public schools, and that children could attend private schools instead” Chesapeake College (2010). However, the type of school one attends is not as important as the status of the school in delivering to the student, what education is set out to provide students. The American government has put in place a body that sees to it that before a school is mandated to operate; whether as a private or public school, the school undergoes certain assessment process to ensure that it meets laid down criteria and standard. This assessment process is known as accreditation. Accreditation is important in ensuring that the freedom given to people to start schools is not abused and that parents and guardians get value for the money they spend in educating their wards. One area that the issuance of accreditation has become most popular and gained a lot of public attention is at the higher education level in the US. Higher Education System in US There are several types of higher education institutions in the United States. Some of these include: Research Universities, Doctorate-Granting Universities, Masters (Comprehensive) Universities and Colleges, Baccalaureate (Liberal Arts) Colleges, Associate of Arts Colleges, Professional Schools, Specialized Institutions, Postsecondary Vocational and Technical Schools. According to the U.S. Network for Education Information (USNEI), Washington (2001), “current data indicate that there are some 2,819 institutions offering a Bachelors or higher degree; 2,657 institutions offering at least an associates degree but less than a bachelors degree; and 4,927 institutions offering shorter non-degree programmes of less than two years duration.” These schools offer educational credentials such as High School Diploma, Associate Degree, Certificate, Bachelors Degree, Diploma, Education Specialist, First Professional Degree, Post-Bachelors Diploma, Masters Degree, Certificate of Advanced Study and Doctorate. Thelin, J.R., Edwards, J.R & Moyen, E (2011) see the higher education system to be just more than a set of institutions that impart knowledge. To them, higher education in the United States is an established ‘knowledge industry’ that represents about 3 percent of the gross national product. To this effect, they claim that “virtually every governor and legislature across the nation evokes colleges and universities as critical to a states economic and cultural development.” It is for the sake of this important role that higher education plays to the United States that it is important to ensure that products that are produced by higher education institutions are products worth the ‘market force’. Accreditation Agencies for Higher Education Accreditation of schools in the United States dates back to the 1800s. According to the Accrediting Council for Independent Schools and Colleges, ACICS (2011), “The first regional accrediting agencies formed in the 1880s with particular focus on educational standards and admissions procedures.” The agencies kept changing till in 1996, the Council for Higher Education Accreditation took over accreditation in the United States to oversee the works of accreditation agencies like ACICS and other public and private accreditation agencies. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) is generally responsible for accreditation of higher education in the United States. “In the U.S., the accreditors are private, nongovernmental organizations created for the specific purpose of reviewing higher education institutions and programs for quality” (CHEA, 2010). According to Eaton (2009), there are currently eighty recognized accrediting institutions and organizations in the United States (p. 4) who work under the watch of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. The Role of Accreditation in Higher Education in the United States According to Eaton (2009),”Accreditation is a process of external quality review created and used by higher education to scrutinize colleges, universities and programs for quality assurance and quality improvement.” In ensuring that higher education institutions produce products that are ‘market ready’ and ‘useful’ to society, there is a system in place that checks to be sure that the institutions that educate students are worth their roles. According to Eaton (2009), the mission statement of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation is: The Council for Higher Education Accreditation will serve students and their families, colleges and universities, sponsoring bodies, governments, and employers by promoting academic quality through formal recognition of higher education accrediting bodies and will coordinate and work to advance self regulation through accreditation. (p.2) To this effect, accreditation in Higher Education is to play the role of promoting academic quality. This is done by the works of accrediting bodies and under the watch of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Assessment Processes in the Acquisition of Accreditation There are specific manners that accreditation agencies assess institutions of higher education. For a school or an institution to be given accreditation to operate, the school or institution is supposed to undergo certain assessment processes by a recognized accrediting body or agency. The assessment exercise is more of a process than an event and involves a number of stages. Eaton (2009) identifies the stages as self-study, peer review, site visit, judgment by accrediting organization and periodic external review. In the self-study assessment, institutions are expected to undertake forensic evaluation of their institutions, after which they write a summary of performance based on standards set by accrediting agencies. From this stage, they move to the peer review assessment stage where evaluation of the institution’s assessment summary is done by a group of faculty and administrative peers to ascertain the authenticity of the summary. Based on the report of the peer review team, there is site visitation by accrediting organizations. This stage of assessment is broadened to include members of the public who may even be non-academics. This is necessary to do as the institutions do not only serve academia but the society as a whole. After the visit, there is a final judgment passed by the accrediting organization based on report from the visitation. The final judgment could be anything including “affirming accreditation for new institutions and programs, reaffirming accreditation for ongoing institutions and programs and deny accreditation to institutions and programs” (Eaton, 2009). These assessment processes emitted by the accreditation agencies, once well followed constitutes a great deal of service to the various institutions, students and the public. To this effect, Eaton (2009) writes that “accreditors are accountable to the institutions and programs they accredit. They are accountable to the public and government that have invested heavily in higher education and expect quality.” Different policies that facilitate the accreditation process In other to facilitate the accreditation process for institutions, various institutions put in place certain strategic measures to win the advancement of academic quality, demonstration of accountability in all spheres of operation, undertaking regular self scrutiny and undertaking changes where necessary, employing balanced and fair procedures in decision making, keeping abreast and up t date with accreditation practice as well possessing sufficient resources to fit the standard of an institution of higher education. With these strategies well followed and adhered to, institutions are always confident they will go through the assessment processes in the accreditation exercise successfully. REFERENCE LIST AAHEA (2010). American Association for Higher Education & Accreditation. Retrieved March 4 2011 from http://www.aahea.org/ Chesapeake College (2010). The History of American Education - 20th Century. Retrieved March 1 2011 from http://www.chesapeake.edu/Library/EDU_101/eduhist_20thC.asp Eaton J.S (2009). An Overview of US Accreditation. Retrieved March 2 2011 from http://www.chea.org/pdf/2009.06_Overview_of_US_Accreditation.pdf Net Industries (2011). Private Schooling - What Is a Private School?, History of Private Schools in the United States, retrieved March 3 2011 from http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2334/Private-Schooling.html The Council for Higher Education Accreditation, CHEA (2010). Public Information. Retrieved March 2 2011 from http://www.chea.org/public_info/index.asp Thelin, J.R., Edwards, J.R & Moyen, E (2011). Higher Education in the United States - HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT, SYSTEM. Retrieved March 3 2011 from http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2044/Higher-Education-in-United-States.html U.S. Network for Education Information (USNEI), Washington (2001). United States of America – Education System. Retrieved March 2 2011 from http://www.globaled.us/wwcu/background/United-States.htm APPENDIX ARTICLE 1 Accreditation and the Federal Government http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1731/Accreditation-in-United-States.html It is unlikely that accreditation is high on a students list of concerns when selecting an institution. It is only when an institution is not accredited that a student becomes concerned. One reason is that lack of specialized accreditation will hamper a students career after graduation. Another more immediate reason is that the federal government uses accreditation as a criterion for student financial aid. A student cannot use federal financial aid to attend an institution that is not accredited by a federally approved accrediting association. Accreditation is part of what is commonly called the "triad" and is a way for the federal government to use existing, nongovernmental agencies to fulfill public policy goals. The triad establishes relationships between the federal government and eligibility for funding, state government and its responsibility for chartering institutions, and voluntary membership associations that require accreditation for membership. The triad evolved from the passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which provided the first broad-based, permanent, federally funded student financial aid programs for students in public and private universities. This act is an authorization statute that must be renewed after a fixed number of years. In the various renewals since 1965, accreditation has taken on an increased role as part of the oversight triad. In 1992 the Higher Education Act gave the Department of Education increased authority over the accreditation process. Specifically, the Education Department was to require that all regional and specialized associations assess thirteen specific criteria in their reviews: academic calendars, catalogs, publications, grading, and advertising curricula faculty facilities, equipment, and supplies student support services recruiting and admissions practices fiscal and administrative capacity as appropriate for the scale of the institution program length and tuition and fees in relation to the subject matter taught and the objectives of the degree measures of program length in clock hours or credit hours student outcome measures default rate record of student complaints received by the accrediting association or state agency compliance with program responsibilities under Title IV of the Higher Education Act The intent of these new requirements was to address concerns of fraud and abuse in the federal student aid program. The primary targets of the new requirements were proprietary and vocational schools, but the new rules applied to traditional colleges and universities as well. The 1998 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act reversed some of the 1992 requirements, thereby returning some control and administrative discretion to the accrediting associations. Still, the reauthorization did not reverse the trend of the federal government taking an increasingly interventionist approach toward the associations. Over a three-decade period, the federal government had become a major investor in higher education with billions of dollars going to student financial aid yearly. The federal government was no longer willing to simply let the voluntary accrediting associations establish the rules of accreditation. The decreased number of fraud and abuse cases has reduced federal pressure on the associations, but the triad will never return to its old relationship of three independent parties acting together to ensure institutional integrity. Future Issues Accreditation will remain a defining characteristic of American higher education. The federal government is unwilling to take on the task of accrediting public and private institutions of higher education. Even if there were such a movement, it would not survive institutional, state, and constitutional challenges. This is not to say that accreditation will remain static. Regional accreditation will continue to evolve to meet the needs of institutions just as it has for more than 100 years. Specialized accreditation will face stiffer challenges. It is probable that more and more major universities will discard specialized accreditation. In some fields, teacher education for example, new specialized associations are attempting to challenge NCATE. The federal government will continue to use the associations as part of the triad but will continue to try to intervene in the accreditation process to ensure that federal interests are protected. Regardless of the accuracy of these predictions, the primary differences between higher education in the United States and other countries will continue to be that there is no centralized control in the United States. The types of review, oversight, and quality control performed by national education ministries in other nations will continue to be performed by private, not-for-profit accrediting agencies in the United States. ARTICLE 2 THE ROLES OF ACCREDITATION EATON JUDITH S. http://www.chea.org/pdf/2009.06_Overview_of_US_Accreditation.pdf Accreditation carries out the following roles: • Assuring quality. Accreditation is the primary means by which colleges, universities and programs assure quality to students and the public. Accredited status is a signal to students and the public that an institution or program meets at least threshold standards for, e.g., its faculty, curriculum, student services and libraries. Accredited status is conveyed only if institutions and programs provide evidence of fiscal stability. Access to federal and state funds. Accreditation is required for access to federal funds such as student aid and other federal programs. Federal student aid funds are available to students only if the institution or program they are attending is accredited by a recognized accrediting organization. The federal government awarded USD $86 billion in student grants and loans in 2006&2007 alone. State funds to institutions and students are contingent on accredited status. • Engendering private sector confidence. Accreditation status of an institution or program is important to employers when evaluating credentials of job applicants and when deciding whether to provide tuition support for current employees seeking additional education. Private individuals and foundations look for evidence of accreditation when making decisions about private giving. • Easing transfer. Accreditation is important to students for smooth transfer of courses and programs among colleges and universities. Receiving institutions take note of whether or not the credits a student wishes to transfer have been earned at an accredited institution. Although accreditation is but one among several factors taken into account by receiving institutions, it is viewed carefully and is considered an important indicator of quality. THE OPERATION OF U.S. ACCREDITATION Accreditation of institutions and programs takes place on a cycle that may range from every few years to as many as 10 years. Accreditation is ongoing; the initial earning of accreditation is not entry to indefinite accredited status. Periodic review is a fact of life for accredited institutions and programs. Self-accreditation is not an option. An institution or program seeking accreditation must go through a number of steps stipulated by an accrediting organization. These steps involve a combination of several tasks: preparation of evidence of accomplishment by the institution or program, scrutiny of this evidence and a site visit by faculty and administrative peers and action by the accrediting organization to determine accreditation status. • Self-study. Institutions and programs prepare a written summary of performance, based on accrediting organizations’ standards. • Peer review. Accreditation review is conducted primarily by faculty and administrative peers in the profession. Th ese colleagues review the self-study and serve on visiting teams that review institutions and programs after the self-study is completed. Peers constitute the majority of members of the accrediting commissions or boards that make judgments about accrediting status. • Site visit. Accrediting organizations normally send a visiting team to review visit. Teams, in addition to the peers described above, may also include public members (non-academics who have an interest in higher education). All team members are volunteers and are generally not compensated. • Judgment by accrediting organization. Accrediting organizations have decision-making bodies (commissions) made up of administrators and faculty from institutions and programs as well as public members. These commissions may affirm accreditation for new institutions and programs, reaffirm accreditation for ongoing institutions and programs and deny accreditation to institutions and programs. • Periodic external review. Institutions and programs continue to be reviewed over time. Th ey normally prepare a self-study and undergo a site visit each time. Accreditation is a trust-based, standards-based, evidence-based, judgment-based, peer-based process. HOLDING ACCREDITORS ACCOUNTABLE: “RECOGNITION” OF ACCREDITING ORGANIZATIONS In the United States, accreditors are accountable to the institutions and programs they accredit. They are accountable to the public and government that have invested heavily in higher education and expect quality. Accreditors undertake an organizational self-assessment on a routine basis and are required to have internal complaint procedures. Accreditors also undergo a periodic external review of their organizations known as “recognition.” Recognition is carried out either by another private organization, the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA, a national coordinating body for institutional and programmatic accreditation) or the United States Department of Education (USDE). Although accreditation is strictly a nongovernmental activity, recognition is not. CHEA (NONGOVERNMENTAL) RECOGNITION STANDARDS** • Advance academic quality. Accreditors have a clear description of academic quality and clear expectations that the institutions or programs they accredit have processes to determine whether quality standards are being met. • Demonstrate accountability. Accreditors have standards that call for institutions and programs to provide consistent, reliable information about academic quality and student achievement to foster continuing public confidence and investment. Encourage, where appropriate, self-scrutiny and planning for change and needed improvement. Accreditors encourage self-scrutiny for change and needed improvement through ongoing self-examination in institutions and programs. • Employ appropriate and fair procedures in decision making. Accreditors maintain appropriate and fair organizational policies and procedures that include effective checks and balances. • Demonstrate ongoing review of accreditation practice. Accreditors undertake self-scrutiny of their accrediting activities. • Possess sufficient resources. Accreditors have and maintain predictable and stable resources. Read More