Higher Education Accrediation

Higher Education Accreditation

There are many things that affect accreditation and higher education in general. One of those things is the political climate. While most people may not associate politics with higher education, the funding that is offered to educational institutions of any level is generally affected by who is in office, to which political party they belong, and how that party has traditionally prioritized issues such as higher education (Dar & Spence, 2011). Not all of the issues surrounding higher education are divided down party lines, however. One of the most significant questions recently asked regarding this issue was how (and whether) partisanship actually affects policy priorities and expenditures in the U.S. (Dar & Spence, 2011). Education should not be a partisan issue, because it should be something about which all parties and all candidates are concerned (Dar & Spence, 2011). Despite the way things "should" be, though, there are still many partisan issues where higher education is concerned. It does not look as though this will be changing in the near future (Dar & Spence, 2011).

Partisanship does matter when it comes to institutions of higher learning, but some of the policies that are created and distributed do not clearly fall on the left or the right of the political spectrum (Dar & Spence, 2011). What is to be done when higher education becomes not a partisan problem but an overall political problem? That is a question which some scholars seek to answer, but they have not yet definitively done so. When higher education issues such as accreditation do not fall strictly on the left or right politically, it is argued that partisanship is still important (Dar & Spence, 2011). However, the importance of higher education and partisanship as it pertains to that issue changes to something that is deeply affected by other factors such as the economic climate at the time and the degree of ideological polarization that is being faced by the country (Dar & Spence, 2011).

Which party has control can definitely affect the higher education budget and rulings made on the future of that budget, as well as what is acceptable or not acceptable from a higher education standpoint (Dar & Spence, 2011). It has been found that having an additional legislator who is of the Democratic mindset, especially during times where there is high unemployment and a high degree of polarization, has a strong effect on the budget share and spending levels that are offered to higher education institutions (Dar & Spence, 2011). Data from 1876 to 2004 was used to determine that outcome, and led the researcher to conclude that policy considerations that do not follow a standard partisan mindset will have conditional and predictable effects based on the prevailing political party in office (Dar & Spence, 2011). That is worth considering when higher education seems to be running short of funds but yet the demands for accreditation and other proof of value continue to rise.

The quality of higher education is often measured by whether (and by what institution or organization) a university is accredited (Eaton, et al., 2005). These accrediting agencies work very hard to let the public know about the importance of quality in the higher education realm (Eaton, et al., 2005). However, in recent years they are finding that the higher education system is becoming more complex and controversial in nature because of the Higher Education Act (Eaton, et al., 2005). Society is changing, and higher education needs and demands are changing with it. The private space that used to belong to only a few institutions and accrediting bodies is opening up, and more places are offering accreditation to more institutions (Eaton, et al., 2005). Because that is the case, there is a concern about the quality of the accrediting institutions and what accreditation really means if there are so many places that can offer it (Eaton, et al., 2005). How much validity does accreditation have when a school can get it from nearly anywhere at any time?

Lawmakers and others are interested in making sure the public is informed about the quality of higher education and about the "recognized" or "legitimate" accrediting bodies throughout the United States (Eaton, et al., 2005). However, lately there have been challenges to some of those accrediting bodies, and concerns that others that are not recognized may be just as valid. This has thrown the entire idea of accreditation into a tailspin because it is becoming increasingly more difficult to determine what accreditation is valid and acceptable and what is not (Eaton, et al., 2005). Additionally, some universities and other institutions accept different kinds of accreditations as being valid, while these same accreditations may not be valid at other universities in which a student is attempting to enroll (Eaton, et al., 2005). That is a serious concern, because it can keep a student from attending a college or university simply based on the school he or she attended previously and by whom that school was accredited (Eaton, et al., 2005). It is easy to see this is a serious dilemma.

Over the course of the last few years, one of the things lawmakers have asked for has been additional information from accrediting organizations. In other words, they want to know about the academic performance of higher education institutions those organizations accredit, along with the programs that are offered there and the outcomes for student learning (Eaton, et al., 2005). These are reasonable requests, and the desire is to provide that information to the public in order to allow the public to make decisions that are better informed when it comes to the acceptance of a particular accrediting institution. All valid accrediting institutions currently report at least some of that information (Eaton, et al., 2005). The issue, though, is that lawmakers are asking for this information. That delves into the role of the federal government and whether it should be controlling higher education in that way (Eaton, et al., 2005). The autonomous nature of higher education could be threatened by these demands (Eaton, et al., 2005).

One of the most significant conclusions that has been reached in recent years is that accreditation does not improve or ensure the quality of the university of what was being taught there, and was not protecting the curriculum or the students (American, 2007). In fact, accreditation information was giving parents, students, and decision-makers in the public almost nothing other than a false sense of security that they would be securing a good education by only attending a school that was accredited by a specific accrediting organization (American, 2007). Further study into the issue indicates that the problem is ongoing and that it is getting worse (American, 2007). There are many stories collected regarding how accreditation organizations are not providing anything of value to universities and other educational institutions, and how those same organizations are not offering any kind of meaningful criteria by which they test for inclusion (American, 2007).

Parents and students feel "safe" with a university that is accredited, and have been taught that unaccredited (or differently accredited) universities are "fly by night" organizations that will take their money and not teach them anything (American, 2007). Still, investigation into this issue has shown that there are many valid but unaccredited or differently accredited universities, and that many accredited universities still have lapses in programs and teaching that have not been in any way prevented by becoming (or staying) accredited (American, 2007). There is no meaningful test that is given to make an accreditation determination, and there is no assurance of quality academic engagement (American, 2007). Instead, all that is being seen with accreditation in the U.S. today is a bad policy that is stopping educational institutions from remaining autonomous (American, 2007). It makes sense that the country should not give taxpayer money to schools that are not legitimate, but accreditation is not the way to determine legitimacy for any institution of higher learning today (American, 2007).

In the years between 1989 and 2009, many organizations that offered regional accreditation were on the defensive (Crow, 2009). These organizations were generally created in the 1950s, and what they did and how they did it had not changed much since then - at least until the early 1990s (Crow, 2009). At that time, Congress had heard so many tales of abuse and fraud tied to financial aid that it determined accreditation was no longer trustworthy and was not doing its job (Crow, 2009). Rather than abolish it, accrediting institutions were ordered to make changes. That came about through the reauthorization of the higher Education Act (Crow, 2009). This took place in 1992, and placed a multitude of new and improved requirements on any organization that wanted to continue to be able to accredit colleges and universities and be national or regionally recognized as having the power to do so (Crow, 2009). Without proper accreditation from a recognized and approved organization, a university would not be able to receive federal financial aid (Crow, 2009).

Congress did more than just reauthorize the Act, though. It also required that state agencies be established that would be able to handle some of the work that accrediting agencies were once expected to do on their own (Crow, 2009). By doing that, it was assumed accreditation would be easy to attain for deserving schools, and the value of being accredited would be seen once again (Crow, 2009). It became a failed experiment and did not work out in the way Congress had hoped. All it did was make more work for the states, but the accrediting agencies modified many of their policies and practices so that they could meet federal requirements that had been set out for them (Crow, 2009). One of the main requirements they had to meet to retain the ability to legitimately accredit universities and other higher learning institutions was to clearly spell out the expectations for student learning that had to be achieved by universities to earn accreditation (Crow, 2009).

Not everyone believes that accreditation is bad, or that it does not provide safety and security for students. Its basic functions are to help universities ensure quality for students and also to help those same universities improve in areas where they may be somewhat lacking in quality (Brittingham, O'Brien, & Alig, 2008). The goal of accreditation (and one at which many scholars think it has failed) is to provide information to students, parents, prospective employers, and other universities regarding the academic integrity and standards of quality that are upheld by a particular academic institution (Brittingham, O'Brien, & Alig, 2008). This not only helps people make informed decisions about where they wish to attend college, but it also helps universities and other higher learning institutions focus on what they can do better and what they need to do if they are interested in earning accreditation from a regional body (Brittingham, O'Brien, & Alig, 2008). Studying accreditation can help a researcher determine for himself or herself as to the value of that accreditation and whether it continues to be a viable idea for higher education.

Researching in preparation for becoming accredited is an important step for colleges and universities. Without being aware of what they need to accomplish, it becomes difficult for any higher learning institution to get the accreditation it needs (Brittingham, O'Brien, & Alig, 2008). Fortunately for universities that still believe in the value of higher education, and for those that want to be able to receive federal funding, it is possible to research the guidelines and know what needs to be done in order to attain accredited status (Brittingham, O'Brien, & Alig, 2008). With that in mind, any university with a legitimate curriculum and a high quality of teaching cannot simply be accredited. There are guidelines that must be followed and there are student learning outcomes that have to be met (Brittingham, O'Brien, & Alig, 2008). Perhaps the greatest recent change to the requirements is in those outcomes.

Accreditation reviews are conducted each year, and staff, faculty, and administrators on U.S. campuses around the country must all make preparations for them (Brittingham, 2009). The process is one that is widely accepted throughout higher education and the basic tenets of it are well-known to anyone who has been involved in higher education for very long. There are a set of standards that must be met, a self-study which must be conducted, a review of the information by the institution's peers, and a decision made by a commission appointed for just that very thing (Brittingham, 2009). However, the context and development of accreditation are something else entirely, and they are often gray areas that are not clearly understood, even by the people who must work within them (Brittingham, 2009). Where accreditation came from, how it arrived at where it is now, and why it appears to be unique to America are all issues to be considered when it comes to learning about accreditation (Brittingham, 2009). Regional accreditation is the most popular of the options and the most commonly discussed when people talk about accreditation, but it is not the only option (Brittingham, 2009).

There are also national accreditation bodies for schools that are career-oriented or faith-based, and there are options for schools that are high professional and specialized (Brittingham, 2009). The history of accreditation is long, and there is no need to address it here. What is most significant, however, is that it appears to be here to stay despite everything it has gone through with Congress and the need to re-do many of the guidelines and rules that surround it (Brittingham, 2009). How the U.S. got to the point of accreditation is not nearly as important as where it will go from this point and what it has to offer in the future. Should accreditation stay? Should it be removed? If so, what kind of system (if any) should be put in place of it? That is one of the overarching questions regarding accreditation: if scholars and researchers do not think it is a good system, what do they think would be better?

That begs the question not of whether accreditation is good or bad, but why institutions must go through it at all, especially if they are doing well and are successful with student outcomes and other benchmarks of a quality educational institution (Why, n.d.). Many administrators and faculty members at various schools often ask themselves this very question, because they are already overburdened with administrative and teaching duties - and then they have to focus on accreditation on top of everything else on which they are already working (Why, n.d.). Accreditation is needed so that government agencies (including those that provide financial aid to students) will recognize and work with a particular university. Parents and students also want to see it, as do prospective employers and the majority of the community (Why, n.d.). But what does accreditation really mean?

Other studies addressed in this literature review have shown there is a very questionable benefit to accreditation, and that it does not directly affect the quality of the school in many cases, so why does the persistence that a university must be accredited continue? What purpose does it serve, other than as a pacifier for those who do not understand the full realm of educational opportunities and how little accreditation actually affects what a school is capable of doing? One thing accreditation does is ensure that there are benchmarks set for student achievement (Why, n.d.). It is a guidepost of sorts for what students absolutely must learn before they are allowed to receive their degrees (Why, n.d.). Institutions are forced to renew themselves and change their curriculum almost constantly, in an effort to keep up with new guidelines and new opportunities for those who are about to graduate (Why, n.d.). There are changes in the accreditation of universities, however, such as allowance for off-campus learning through the computer (Why, n.d.). that would not have been acceptable only a few short years ago, and would not have been trusted, but accredited schools are capable of offering that option.

Some scholars are deeply concerned about the political role seen in accreditation and how that might be "spilling over" from America into countries such as Britain (Harvey, 2004). That is not to say that Britain has never had any accreditation. They have had it for decades, as has the United States, but the two systems have been different in design, nature, and scope (Harvey, 2004). By looking at the views of people who have been involved in the accreditation of higher education institutions in America, and comparing them to the views of people who have been involved in the accreditation of higher education institutions in Britain, it will be possible to look at the similarities and differences as well as the value of accreditation for both countries (Harvey, 2004).There are perceived benefits with accreditation but there are also problems - some that are easily perceived and some that are more easily hidden or overlooked. The goal, though, is to raise the fundamental issues that appear within accreditation, so that they can be more easily analyzed (Harvey, 2004).