Higher Education Accreditation: A Look at the USA and Japan

David WernerVisiting Researcher

Local Human Resources and Public Policy System, Open Research Center (LORC), Ryukoku University

December 27, 2004

Today’s Presentation: Five Topics

My accreditation Experience

Overview of Accreditation in the USA

Current Issues in Accreditation in the USA

Accreditation in Japan

Accreditation Issues in Japan

My Accreditation Experience

Academic Administrator Accreditor Work with National

Associations of Accreditors Research on Accreditation

Accreditation Experience as an Administrator North Central

Association, Higher Learning Commission

AACSB—Business ADA—Dental Medicine NCATE—Education NLNAC—Nursing CSWE—Social Work NASPAA—Public

Administration

ABET—Engineering ACCE—Construction NASM—Music CoA-NA—Nurse

Anesthesia ASHA/CAA—Speech

Pathology ACPE—Pharmacy

Experience as an Accreditor

AACSB—Business: 1977—1987

NCA--Regional Accreditor: 1983—2004

ADA—Dental Medicine: 1998—2001

APA—Clinical Psychology:2002—present

Experience with National Associations

CHEA: Council for Higher Education Accreditation

ASPA: Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors

Purpose of Accreditation

Mechanism for quality assurance

-to the public

-to prospective students

-to parents

Process for continuous improvement

Philosophy of Accreditation

Non-governmental- US distrust of government

-state vs. national government

Voluntary

Peer review

Structure: Three Types of Accreditors

Regional Accreditors: Accredit Entire Institution-Six Regions-Similar to the JUAA

National Accreditors: Accredit Institutions-Six recognized National Accreditors

Specialized Accreditors: Accredit Programs-About 60 Specialized Accreditors-Accreditation in “professional” fields-Like JABEE

Brief History of Accreditation in USA

First regional accrediting agency in 1885 First accreditation action: 1910 First specialized accrediting agency in 1907—

medicine Accrediting agencies added in response to:

-growth of higher education

-development of new fields of study

-response to professions Accreditation and accrediting agencies change

continually

Who “Accredits” the Accreditors?

Approval Process Called “Recognition”

National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity

(US Department of Education)

Council for Higher Education Accreditation

National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity Unit of Federal Government

“Recognizes” (Approves) AccreditorsFive year review cycle Recognition provides

-status to the agency-makes students eligible for

Federal Financial AidMakes accreditation “semi-voluntary”

Published Criteria for Recognition

Council for Higher Education Accreditation

Not-for-Profit Organization

-Universities and colleges are members Recognition provides status and

legitimacy No connection between CHEA

recognition and financial aid Published Criteria for Recognition

Accreditation Not the Only Means of Quality Control in US Internal Program Review

Public Universities Review by State Government

Review by System Administration

License to Practice in Some Fields

Current Issues in Accreditation in US

Focus of standards: Inputs, Processes, Educational Outcomes

Confidentiality

Proliferation of Accrediting Agencies

Issue 1: What Focus of Standards?

Resources ProcessesEducational

Outcomes

Historical Focus: Resources and Processes Resources:

Financial ResourcesNumber of Faculty, Faculty QualificationsSupport StaffQuality of StudentsLibrary ResourcesPhysical Facilities

Historical Focus: Resources and Processes

Processes: Graduation RequirementsCurriculumAcademic PoliciesStudent PoliciesStudent Services

New Focus: Educational Outcomes

What have students learned? What skills have students developed? Have graduates found jobs? What kinds of jobs? At what companies or institutions? How do graduates rate their educational

experience?

Why this new focus?

Assumption underlying looking at resources and processes is not correct.

Purpose of education is learning; accreditation should focus on learning.

Focus on resources often misused to justify adding resources to programs

Achieving a Balance: Resources, Processes, and Educational Outcomes Accreditation decisions need to be forward

looking Student outcomes tell how the program has

performed in past. Need to look at resources and processes to

determine if educational outcomes will continue

Therefore: resources, processes, and outputs should all be reviewed

Issue 2: Confidentiality: Historic

Only accreditation decision made public: Accredited On probation Not accredited

Self-study, site visit reports, confidential

Issue 3: Growth of Accrediting Agencies

About 60 specialized accrediting agencies

Some presidents want to restrict emergence of new agencies

Some want accreditation limited to fields involving health and public safety

Pressures from new professions

Accreditation in Japan: Past

Quality Control Focused on Approval to Operate by MEXT

Quality Control the Responsibility of Institutions, not an External Agency

JUAA Formed in 1950’s Many JUAA accredited institutions not

reviewed for over 50 years. National Universities under control of MEXT

Changes in Japan: Education Law Amended

Accreditation now required of all universities

National Universities now NPOs-NIAD-UE to Evaluate National Universities-Results to be made public

MEXT to “recognize” accreditors-Similar to DoE Approval in US-NIAD-UE; JUAA; Possibly Others

Japan Accreditation: Questions

What accrediting agencies will MEXT approve?

Institutional and Specialized? What will be the effect of using “third party”

reviewers? What information will be released to the

public? How will the release of information affect the

accreditation process?

Issues to be Addressed in Starting an Accrediting Agency What will be the organizational structure of

the agency? What relationship will the agency have to the

profession or the universities? How will the agency be funded? What will be the scope of accreditation? Who will apply the standards to make

accreditation decisions? How will the decision makers be selected?

More Questions

On what will the accreditation standards focus?

What information will be released to the public?

Who will be the site visitors? How many? How will site visitors be trained? How will conflicts of interest be managed? For how long will accreditation be granted? How can negative decisions be appealed?

Conclusion

Accreditation is Complex

Answers to these questions depend on:

culture of the society

culture of the profession

Improving by Working Together: American Examples

Much to learn from each other

ASPA and CRAC as examples

-ASPA: Specialized Accreditors

-CRAC: Regional Accreditors

Thank you!

Questions are welcomed