Higher Education and Quality Assuarance

¶ … components of accreditation of higher-education institutions in the United States? To what extent does accreditation in the American model measure student-learning input?

The purpose of higher-education institutions' accreditation is: making sure they meet satisfactory quality levels in imparting educational facilities. In America, accreditation involves both state governmental bodies and non-governmental organizations (USDE, 2015). The key elements of accreditation for American educational institutions are:

Institutional Accreditors: In America, two kinds of accrediting organizations exist, for institutional accreditation, namely, national and regional accreditors. While the latter chiefly accredit private and public nonprofit educational institutions that confer degrees, they also accredit several for-profit educational institutions. National accreditors for educational institutions are classified into two general categories: (1) faith-related: these accreditors predominantly accredit nonprofit doctrinally-based and religious institutes, and (2) career-related: these accreditors predominantly accredit non-degree awarding institutions and for-profit career institutes (PNPI, 2013).

Programmatic/Specialized Accreditors: These accreditors assess a specific school, program, or department, normally connected with a certain vocation or profession. This class of accreditors assesses various academic fields, right from humanities and arts (like art, drama, dance, and music), to services (massage therapy, for instance), and diverse healthcare-linked vocations (like, nursing, medicine, and physical therapy). For being eligible for institutional loans and grants under Title IV, institutional accreditation suffices. But in some cases, an accreditation by a specialized/programmatic accreditation agency can also function as an institutional accreditation, when the vocational/specialized institute is independent, with operations associated with no other accredited institute having broader offerings and academic mission (PNPI, 2013).

Of late, accrediting organizations have suffered sharp criticism by an increasing number of lawmakers and politicians, owing to their practice of over-emphasis of accreditation decisions on the inputs of institutions than on their outputs. For instance, accrediting agencies usually face criticism for their concentration on factoids, such as how many faculty members hold doctoral degrees or how many books the institution's library houses, instead of putting emphasis on what knowledge/expertise is being imparted to students, the frequency of graduations, etc. As a response, the accrediting organizations, to differing levels, display aggressiveness in compelling member institutes to implement some or other quantifiable measures of output (AFT, n.d.).

Objectives of the British government in passing the Further & Higher Education Act in 1992 and in establishing the Quality Assurance Agency five years later.

The Further and Higher Education Act (FHEA) (6 March 1992):

1. formed the FEFCs or Further Education Funding Councils;

1. removed sixth form and further education colleges from the control of the local education authority;

1. integrated higher education financing under HEFCs or Higher Education Funding Councils;

1. initiated competition, among institutions, for finances; and

1. put an end to the Council for National Academic Awards (Gillard, 2011)

Therefore, FHEA accomplished the same for sixth form and further education colleges that the Education Reform Act of 1988 achieved for grant-maintained British schools: it freed them from local authorities' control, granting their governing organizations a further education corporation status. They would experience control and quango-funding via a market that is privatized. Therefore, local authorities found it more difficult to formulate strategic plans as intended. Local systems would cease to exist, and the environment would simply consist of separate educational "businesses" vying with each other for "clients" within a legislative framework under central-government control (Gillard, 2011).

The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) was instituted in the year 1997 for the purpose of rationalizing existing higher education's exterior quality assurance. This agency functions independently of governmental bodies in the UK, under the ownership of the organizations representing the leaders of colleges and universities in the UK (Universities UK, Standing Conference of Principals, Universities Scotland, and Higher Education Wales). Colleges and universities are in charge of dealing with the quality and academic standards of their respective awards. QAA assess how well the colleges and universities fulfill this responsibility, as well as the efficiency of processes in place to serve this purpose (QAA, 2005).

Discussion 4

Driving Forces

Globalization: the term itself suggests the increase in cross border activities related to higher education and is often put in front when several claims come forward that higher education would be impacted by the economic developments throughout the world (Teichler, n.d.).

Media: the advanced technologies play their part in academics where information is easily available and the higher education is affected by the quality research that somehow is put in danger (Teichler, n.d.).

New Management and Steering Systems: several new mechanisms of management and steering have high impact on the structure of higher education, especially in Europe whose higher education system is shaped by sanctions and incentives (Teichler, n.d.).