This paper examines the structure and purpose of higher education accreditation in the United States, distinguishing between institutional accreditors (regional and national) and programmatic/specialized accreditors, while addressing criticisms of input-focused accreditation practices. It also analyzes the objectives behind the United Kingdom's Further and Higher Education Act of 1992 and the subsequent establishment of the Quality Assurance Agency in 1997. Additional discussions address the driving forces — including globalization, media, and new management systems — that shape higher education globally, as well as the relationship between higher education and political engagement, and key factors in creating effective learning environments.
The purpose of accreditation for higher education institutions is to ensure that they meet satisfactory quality standards in delivering educational services. In America, accreditation involves both state governmental bodies and non-governmental organizations (USDE, 2015). A central component of this system is the distinction between different types of institutional accreditors in the United States.
Two kinds of accrediting organizations exist for institutional accreditation in America: national and regional accreditors. Regional accreditors chiefly accredit private and public nonprofit educational institutions that confer degrees, though they also accredit several for-profit institutions. National accreditors 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).
Of late, accrediting organizations have faced sharp criticism from an increasing number of lawmakers and politicians, owing to their tendency to base accreditation decisions on institutional inputs rather than outputs. For instance, accrediting agencies are often criticized for focusing on metrics such as how many faculty members hold doctoral degrees or how many books the institution's library houses, rather than emphasizing what knowledge and expertise are actually being imparted to students, or how frequently students graduate. In response, accrediting organizations have, to varying degrees, moved more aggressively toward compelling member institutions to implement quantifiable measures of student output (AFT, n.d.).
Programmatic or specialized accreditors assess a specific school, program, or department, normally connected with a particular vocation or profession. This class of accreditors covers a wide range of academic fields, from the humanities and arts — including art, drama, dance, and music — to service-oriented fields such as massage therapy, and diverse healthcare-related vocations such as nursing, medicine, and physical therapy.
For eligibility for institutional loans and grants under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, institutional accreditation is sufficient. However, in some cases a specialized or programmatic accreditation agency can also serve as an institutional accreditor, when the vocational or specialized institution is independent — with operations not associated with any other accredited institution that has broader academic offerings and mission (PNPI, 2013).
The Further and Higher Education Act (FHEA), passed on 6 March 1992, pursued several key objectives. It:
1. Formed the Further Education Funding Councils (FEFCs);
2. Removed sixth-form and further education colleges from the control of local education authorities;
3. Integrated higher education financing under Higher Education Funding Councils (HEFCs);
4. Initiated competition among institutions for finances; and
5. Brought an end to the Council for National Academic Awards (Gillard, 2011).
The FHEA accomplished for sixth-form and further education colleges what the Education Reform Act of 1988 had achieved for grant-maintained British schools: it freed them from local authorities' control, granting their governing organizations further education corporation status. These institutions would subsequently be governed and funded through a privatized market structure. As a result, local authorities found it more difficult to formulate strategic plans as originally intended. Local systems would effectively cease to exist, replaced by an environment of separate educational "businesses" competing with one another for "clients" within a legislative framework under central government control (Gillard, 2011).
The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) was established in 1997 to rationalize the existing external quality assurance arrangements for higher education. This agency operates independently of governmental bodies in the UK, under the ownership of organizations representing the leaders of colleges and universities across the UK — including Universities UK, the Standing Conference of Principals, Universities Scotland, and Higher Education Wales. Colleges and universities retain responsibility for the quality and academic standards of their respective awards. The QAA assesses how well these institutions fulfill that responsibility, as well as the effectiveness of the processes they have in place to do so (QAA, 2005).
Globalization: The term itself suggests an increase in cross-border activities related to higher education, and it is frequently cited when claims are made that higher education will be affected by economic developments around the world (Teichler, n.d.).
"Globalization, media, and management influences on higher education"
"Links between education policy and political participation"
"Evaluating teaching quality and student development"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.