Faculty Roles in Higher Education Accreditation
This paper examines the development of higher education accreditation in the United States, tracing its origins from early 20th-century standardization efforts through major federal legislation including the Higher Education Act and the Higher Educational Opportunity Act of 2008. It distinguishes between institutional and specialized (programmatic) accreditation, explaining the scope and purpose of each. The paper then focuses on the role faculty members play in accreditation, including curriculum review, peer assessment, self-study participation, governance, and advocacy for academic quality. Drawing on sources from ACICS, AAUP, and academic commentary by Frederick Crosson and James Perley, the paper argues that faculty are uniquely positioned to contribute meaningfully to accreditation processes at every level.
- Introduction to Higher Education Accreditation: Origins and purpose of accreditation oversight
- Historical Development of Accreditation Standards: Key milestones from 1912 to 2008 legislation
- Types of Accreditation: Institutional and Programmatic: Defining institutional versus specialized accreditation
- Faculty Roles in the Accreditation Process: Faculty participation in self-study and curriculum review
- Faculty Advocacy and Commitment to Academic Quality: Faculty as advocates for program quality standards
- Conclusion: Crosson's argument for collective faculty responsibility
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper organizes a broad topic logically, moving from historical background to type definitions and then to the practical role of faculty, giving readers a clear conceptual framework before addressing the central argument.
- It draws on multiple authoritative sources — government, professional associations, and peer-reviewed commentary — to support claims about accreditation history and faculty participation.
- The use of a direct quotation from Frederick Crosson effectively anchors the paper's core argument about faculty responsibility in a recognized scholarly voice.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the technique of definition-then-application: it first establishes what accreditation is and how it developed historically, then defines the two main types, and only then argues for faculty involvement. This scaffolding approach ensures the reader understands the context before encountering the paper's central claims, making the argument more persuasive and easier to follow.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a broad introduction to accreditation's origins and regulatory purpose. It then narrows into historical milestones, from 1912 through the 2008 federal revisions. The middle sections define institutional and programmatic accreditation types. The final sections shift to the paper's primary argument: that faculty are indispensable contributors to accreditation through curriculum input, self-study participation, governance, and quality advocacy. The paper closes with a synthesizing quotation that reinforces the collective responsibility of faculty.
Introduction to Higher Education Accreditation
The establishment of higher education accreditation began in the early 19th century as the United States and other countries recognized the need to regulate various fields of academic study. The earliest accrediting efforts arose from the need to develop credit transfer systems and degree equivalencies among institutions and countries. Another important reason accreditation emerged was, according to ACICS (2012), "to protect public health and safety and to serve the public interest." Faculty have played a role that has changed over time, and there are basic processes involved in accreditation — chief among them peer assessment and evaluation, handled primarily by higher educational institutions and third-party agencies. Regulatory oversight involves promoting legislation at the state and federal level to determine policies for managing the accreditation process.
Historical Development of Accreditation Standards
One of the earliest agencies to provide regulation of accreditation was the National Association for Accredited Commercial Schools, founded in 1912. This was a nationwide network of 23 career-based schools serving private institutions (ACICS, 2012). Its main purpose was to create a standardized accrediting criterion for determining the level of education required for various vocations. The American Council on Education, formed a few years later in 1918, was also a national organization that worked to reduce the redundant efforts of various accrediting bodies and strived for national standardization.
As more schools were established, the need for a consistent criterion policy became more apparent. As institutions of higher learning expanded, the federal government recognized the necessity of tracking those that met national accreditation guidelines and ensuring they remained in compliance. One significant step was taken by the U.S. Secretary of Education, who generated the first database — or list — of accredited institutions in 1952 (ACICS, 2012). According to the federal agency, private accrediting bodies were best able to evaluate higher educational institutions, and the federal government's role was limited to ensuring the continuance of such accrediting associations (ACICS, 2012).
The Higher Education Act, under the authority of Congress, became the main regulatory body governing accreditation in the United States. The most recent review and revisions to these federal regulatory standards occurred in 2008 under the Higher Educational Opportunity Act (ACICS, 2012).
Types of Accreditation: Institutional and Programmatic
There are two basic types of accreditation: institutional and specialized, the latter also called programmatic. Institutional accreditation is based on a university meeting the requirements set by an accrediting agency. The agency conducts a thorough audit of the institution's administration, academic curriculum, and student success, producing a report that is far-reaching and comprehensive — covering everything from finance to student services (WorldWideLearn, 2012). A school that receives an excellent rating from such an agency is perceived as a leader in education among peer institutions.
The specialized or programmatic accreditation process applies to professional specialty programs within an already-accredited institution (WorldWideLearn, 2012). These specialties are generally associated with a niche field of education within a broader discipline. For example, within the field of engineering, a specialized program in automotive engineering or computer engineering might seek separate programmatic accreditation. In some cases, a licensing board may require further academic study within a discipline to achieve acceptable accreditation in the specialized area. Other fields where this is evident include nursing, law, and education (AAUP, 2012).
Conclusion
Frederick Crosson made a valid point by stating that "the provisions of accreditation mandate a role by faculty to improve the curriculum presented to the students collectively" (1988). He further commented that, although various disciplines and courses of study differ considerably, they reflect the combined "history, make-up, and resources of the institution" (Crosson, 1988). It is therefore the role of faculty at any university to determine how they can individually and collectively contribute to this end — by investing their knowledge and expertise in enhancing the quality and effectiveness of the educational programming of the institution they have chosen to support.
References
ACICS.org. (2012). History of accreditation. Retrieved April 13, 2012, from
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (2012). Institutional accreditation: A call for greater faculty involvement. Retrieved April 13, 2012, from
Crosson, F. J. (1988). The role of faculty in accreditation. Academe, p. 21.
Perley, J. E. (2007). The Spellings Commission report, vol. 134.
WorldWideLearn.com. (2012). Learn about the types of accreditation. Retrieved April 13, 2012, from http://www.worldwidelearn.com/accreditation/types-accreditation.htm
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.