Peer review, visit and examination
The Accreditation Process
A college, university, or education institution must take several steps to gain accreditation. Knowing how colleges earn their accreditation can help you understand why verifying accreditation can be an important factor in choosing a school.
A decision is reached and continuous review
Trusted by
1283
Solutions that facilitate accreditation of higher education institutions
Accreditation began 60 years ago in the United States in response to the significant increase in university enrollment after the Second World War, and as an urgent need to regulate a market - basically private schools and universities - that began to grow rapidly. The challenge was to maintain teaching quality levels.
Today, accreditation is a normal aspect of Higher Education. However, its implementation represents a double-edged sword.
On the one hand, it offers the opportunity for a Higher Education institution to be recognized as an entity that offers quality education and research for the good of society.
However, it can also become a threat. An accreditation process reveals deficiencies in quality and management errors. It places the institution's credibility and reputation at risk.
Thus, if an institution does not prepare for and believe that accreditation is for a greater good, it will be unable to handle the collateral effects that arise along the way.
Surviving an accreditation process is essential today.
Pressure from civil society and governments for quality education is forcing universities to adopt higher accreditation standards and to deliver concrete results that validate investment made by families and students.
The following are three strategies widely used in Higher Education that help institutions get ready to start an accreditation process.
ACCREDITATION HANDBOOK BY NEASC/CPS
I. The challenges of accrediting Higher Education degrees and institutions
Higher Education institutions face increasing social pressure to be accountable for the provision of quality education, as well as the processes and procedures through which they seek to achieve this objective.
Demands come from several fronts: a citizenry concerned about the quality of the health professionals who treat them, engineers who build their buildings, or the rigorousness of academics who propose public policies.
Civil Society also questions how the public sector distributes taxpayers' money to universities and Technical Education Centers (TEC) in scholarships and credits.
The pressure also comes from the students themselves and their families, as customers of a service, and from the labor market, which seeks professionals who meet the skills and abilities required by companies and governments.
These demands have led the Higher Education sector to start extensive certification processes to accredit the quality of institutions, programs and degrees.
An accreditation process seeks to ensure the quality and transparency of the management of Higher Education institutions and promote internal continuous improvement processes.
These processes are usually voluntary, respond to public policy or government program to improve quality of education, and are directed and supervised by accrediting agencies under a regulatory body.
Like any internal evaluation process, accreditation represents significant challenges and changes for institutions' management.
1. Cost versus benefit
The first question a Higher Education institution should ask itself is if it is willing to spend time and resources, in addition to accepting the economic, social, and educational consequences of starting an accreditation process.
The cost of an accreditation process will only be worth it if the benefit is greater, both monetary and in terms of improving internal management capacity.
The procedure itself is lengthy and involves the entire university, so calculations and investment should always be based on a long-term outlook.
2. Involve the entire institution in the process
The different faculties, study centers and academic units that compose a university often function independently of the institution's governing body.
Even if the entire university has an educational model or roadmap with a mission, vision and unique practices, it is complex to align the entire administrative and academic body under a common goal.
This involves administrative staff, full-time teachers and those who work on a fee basis or contribute to part-time research, as well as current students.
Yet, areas such as human resources, finance, teaching or research usually work in isolation from others.
Accreditation processes usually require that everyone align around a collaborative process. And this takes time.
3. Establish a culture of self-evaluation and self-regulation
By establishing the practice of continuous improvement, accreditation processes promote the constant development of performance evaluation procedures and improvements to plans and programs.
However, accountability is a significant workload both for the administrative area and for academic staff. Both must invest a good part of the time in so-called "management control".
Improvement can also generate discomfort. In this case, although it encourages the cohesion of the "academic community", the dissemination of performance indicators can be seen as a threat by faculties that value their independence from the rest of the university.
4. The institution's autonomy
An institutional accreditation process can even test the vision and mission of an institution.
This strategic evaluation process could also be seen as a threat to the very pillars on which the institution is founded.
In this sense, the self-evaluation and educational model adaptation process must establish a complex balance between compliance with standards and indicators, and maintain a unique and characteristic educational style.
5. Coordination with the labor market
A common issue for all education reform programs is the transition from the delivery of academic knowledge to the integration of work skills.
Also, a constant criticism coming from the labor market is that Higher Education institutions delay making the necessary adjustments to prepare graduates properly with key skills and capabilities.
This is the reason why it is essential for the institution to continually review its graduate profiles of degrees, subjects, and curriculum sequencing so that they reflect the competencies required by industry and the public sector.
Thus, it is critical to improve the relationship between educational institutions and the labor market and monitor faculty graduates to evaluate, explore and compare whether university degrees adjust quickly or not to workplace requirements.
6. Management of academic staff
Accreditation tests the relationship between educational institutions and their academic staff.
On the one hand, it encourages the employment of professionals with better academic credentials. On the other, it demands all teachers be held accountable for their performance.
The latter has different impacts on educators who work exclusively in academia and those who teach and work in the productive sector.
Also, when institutions seek accreditation in research, they must find synergies with teachers who spend more time on research, and researchers who spent more time on teaching. It involves more significant investment in the internal training and improvement of academics.
Some teachers may find that this improvement process threatens their teaching style and freedom to innovate. The concern arises due to increased standardization and homogeneity of classes as part of the accreditation of classroom learning indicators.
It is common for teachers to include new learnings when preparing their classes and to seek to add value to their disciplines. Their apprehension, therefore, is that the accreditation process will limit this ability to innovate.
Faced with these challenges, it is essential for institutions to intelligently disseminate and raise awareness among teachers on the reasons for accreditation, as well as the internal improvements it will involve both inside and outside the classroom.
At the same time, institutions should create feedback channels to allow teachers to comment on the process and record changes that may compromise teaching innovation.
7. Audit versus continuous improvement
Many confuse accreditation with a standard external audit process, which assesses the proper use of resources and the transparency of administrative processes.
Unlike an audit, accreditation is a catalyst for extensive internal changes to ensure that specific quality standards are established in the institution, as well as the permanency of these standards through periodic monitoring and supervision.
For institutions with more advanced self-evaluation processes, accreditation is effective for putting in place continuous improvement policies. For institutions that have new or incipient systems, the process fosters and stimulates the adoption of mechanisms and practices that guarantee education quality.
Conclusion
All these challenges are common to all educational institutions that implement accreditation processes. Some are more important than others, or acquire a new relevance during the process itself.
An institution's ability to overcome these challenges directly relates to how convinced it is about the process and whether it sees accreditation as an opportunity or a burden.
Clearly, it is not an easy task. For it to become successful, organizations must incorporate good practices to facilitate development, management, and continuity of the accreditation process from start to finish.
II. Good practices for an education accreditation process
In general, there is a positive perception of the long-term benefits of an education accreditation process.
The TIAA-CREF Institute in the United States claims that this process can provide invaluable feedback on how a program or a school is doing.
Even preparing for an accreditation visit has a positive effect when there is a conviction that the standards being applied make sense and guarantee quality. This positive evaluation of the system motivates universities to develop and disseminate good practices that facilitate putting in place and assessing the accreditation process.
Among the long list of growing good practices, the following are among the most common and applied:
1. Prepare well
All the information and evidence that the institution needs to gather, organize and present is already in its campus and classrooms.
If schools and universities organize and unify their data, they save time, money and other resources. Moreover, there are technological solutions such as programs that make this task more manageable, and even provide new approaches to educational management.
Most of the general information needs are similar or identical and having one office with this responsibility saves not only time, effort and scarce resources, but also ensures the integrity and consistency of the information provided, says the institute.
However, even if the data is original or well organized, it must be able to withstand criticism and questioning, according to the TIAA-CREF Institute.
2. Personalize assessments
"One size does not fit all," says Carnegie Mellon University in a Hanover Research consultancy report on good and best practices for evaluation in Higher Education.
The university believes the accreditation process must be sufficiently flexible, responsive to feedback and able to adjust to the teaching realities of the departments and schools under assessment.
"The individual teaching modules, departments, and schools are the most appropriate to determine what is the best way to assess their programs and students. Just as individual programs and courses use different approaches, appropriate for different contexts and different objectives and goals. In most cases, it is appropriate to use more than one type of assessment, although the benefits of different assessment tools vary according to the campus where they are performed," Carnegie adds in the report.
3. Get accredited as soon as possible
According to TIAA-CREF Institute, the later an institution starts an accreditation process, the greater the risk to the organization and its individuals. Furthermore, it is more likely the process will not work smoothly. "Even the best institutions and the best programs are not perfect," it warns.
Undoubtedly, accreditation does not happen overnight. It takes time to prepare, review and assess data, become aware of what needs to be accredited, or make the necessary adjustments.
This is especially true when what needs to be adjusted cannot be done instantly. For example, what if an institution needs more academic expertise in a particular area? Or if it is necessary to modify the curriculum?
Applying these changes takes time. Both require a collaborative, collegial process that works well if there is adequate time but can become much less pleasant when pursued under the gun, says the TIAA-CREF Institute.
4. Focus on what matters
"Higher Education students will try to learn only what is tested. The educational institution will focus on assessing what it considers important for quality education," says consultancy firm Hanover Research.
For Carnegie Mellon University, it is essential for graduates to be creative and resourceful in several areas, to have leadership skills and who can work as a team when required.
Thus, the university strives to measure indicators for these attributes, even if they are difficult to establish or lack reliability and validation, says Hanover.
Conclusion
There are many accreditation good practices. It is a long list to which each university and educational institution constantly contributes. However, these practices are only effective when there is conviction by institution's members.
Accreditation best-practices by TIAA-CREF Institute
New Leadership for Student Learning and Accountability
Accreditation and the New England Association of Schools and Colleges
Basic benchmarking steps for accreditation
The academic Dr Sarah L. Collie, from the University of Virginia, provides the following basic steps for Higher Education institutions to implement a successful benchmarking strategy:
Step 1: What to benchmark
Identify critical processes for the organization.
Collect internal data for comparison - how to measure performance; Understand strengths and weaknesses of current process.
Step 2: Who to benchmark
Internal Units. Comparison within an institution.
Other Colleges and Universities. A comparison across institutions.
Functional Comparisons across diverse settings such as higher education, corporate, industry, etc.
Best in Class. Compare with exceptional performers.
Step 3: Collect data
Collect comparative data. Qualitative/quantitative.
Calls, surveys, site visits, interviews, review of websites.
Systematic collection.
Step 4: Analyze data
Gap between performance. Are others better? Why are they better?
New strategies/practices for adoption. What practices could we adapt and adopt?
Step 5: Implement improvements
Action plan for change.
Implement changes.
Measure results for effectiveness.
Conclusion
With these steps, universities and Technical Education Centers can implement, in a simple and effective way, an appropriate benchmarking strategy that is relevant to their needs.
Its efficient application allows internal processes to be improved either before starting an accreditation process or during one.
A Practical Guide to Strategic Planning in Higher Education
III. Description and benefits of four strategies that help educational institutions prepare for accreditation.
1. The importance of preparing for accreditation through assessments
It is one of the most critical good practices implemented by institutions in the accreditation process. This is because it is necessary first to identify what is required and why, as well as the levels to improve, to prepare for an accreditation process. Reporting and assessment tools that are easy to use and understand are required to identify these factors.
Reporting evidence and results of student learning to both internal and external constituents strengthens the institution's commitment to improving programs and services that contribute to a high level of student accomplishment, according to the New Leadership Alliance for Student Learning and Accountability.
As part of this reporting, the university or institution governing board "should receive regular reports about the assessment of student learning and efforts to use evidence to improve programs.
Besides, institutions can ensure transparency and accountability to the public by providing access, on websites and other channels, to student learning evidence, its use, as well as other institutional indicators.
Many Higher Education institutions develop manuals and guidelines to direct and align individual and collective tasks for accreditation and educational excellence.
For example, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) updated its Standards for Accreditation manual, in which it proposes a clear and easy to follow evaluation structure:
Standard 1: Mission and Purposes.
Standard 2: Planning and Evaluation.
Standard 3: Organization and Governance.
Standard 4: The Academic Program.
Standard 5: Students.
Standard 6: Teaching, Learning, and Scholarship.
Standard 7: Institutional Resources.
Standard 8: Educational Effectiveness.
Standard 9: Integrity, Transparency and Public Disclosure.
Conclusion
Supported by assessment tools, it is possible for Higher Education institutions to identify and report on their educational standards. This allows institutions to differentiate between areas that perform well or do not require immediate attention, and those that need to improve.
2. Benchmarking helps universities compare experiences and good accreditation practices
Benchmarking is an ideal methodology to implement collaborative work between several Higher Education institutions to improve their accreditation processes.
The quality movement and benchmarking concept emerged after the Second World War as part of a new international post-war business trend that sought to change and improve the image of low-quality products that several countries had at the time. These markets wanted to generate a new image of trust and "things well done" to compete globally.
It was not until the late 1980s and mid-1990s that benchmarking was introduced as a Higher Education management concept, first in North America and then in Europe.
As the European Centre for Strategic Management of Universities (ESMU according to its French acronym) educational initiative explains, benchmarking is a voluntary process of self-evaluation and self-improvement through the systematic and collaborative comparison of practice and performance with similar organizations.
Under this premise, benchmarking gives rise to many policies, methods, and tools used by public and private institutions worldwide. Its effectiveness is even more significant when these institutions face similar situations and challenges related to delivering quality education, such as the accreditation process.
Committing to Quality Guidelines for Assessment and Accountability in Higher Education
A practical guide Benchmarking in European Higher Education
What does benchmarking compare?
According to PA Consulting Group, benchmarking strategies aim to achieve the following objectives:
Enhance education quality.
Enhance research quality.
Prepare students effectively for life and work in an intercultural and globalizing world.
Enhance the international reputation and visibility of the unit.
Provide service to society and community social engagement.
For each of these objectives, the UK Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) identifies eight categories of implementation:
Students.
Staff.
Administration.
Funding and Finance.
Curricula and Academic Services.
Research.
Promotion and marketing.
Non-Academic Services, and Campus and Community Life.
Experiences in the US and Europe
Over the last 20 years, Higher Education institutions in the US have developed a complex accreditation support network at different levels, from the state up to federal level.
This has resulted in the creation of an institutional framework under the auspices of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), an association of 3,000 colleges and universities which promotes academic quality through accreditation, functions as a benchmarking center and represents its members' interests.
CHEA has witnessed the evolution of accreditation in the US and analyzes and participates in public debate on the subject.
In its national benchmarking role, CHEA lists the following key issues and challenges for college and university accreditation:
Higher education and quality assurance and the relationship with government.
Innovations and so-called disruptive technologies, such as massive open online courses (MOOCs) and open distinctions.
Cross-border higher education.
Harmonization of regional quality assurance as a new development.
Rankings and quality assurance.
Links between assessment frameworks and quality assurance.
A diversity of private providers, including profit-making sector.
The European experience
There has been a focus on benchmarking in Europe since the mid-1990s, either as a national agency initiative, or launched by one or a group of Higher Education institutions, or an independent entity.
This is the case for ESMU which works at a transnational level on the effectiveness of university management processes.
It operates together with a small group of Higher Education institutions to identify good practices.
In parallel, a consortium of four European institutions - ESMU, the Centre for Higher Education Development (CHE for its acronym in English), the UNESCO European Centre for Higher Education (UNESCO-Cepes) and the University of Aveiro - developed the two-year project, Benchmarking in European Higher Education. This analyzed the history, current situation and opportunities that benchmarking offers universities to improve processes, obtain accreditation and deliver better learning outcomes in an environment of excellence.
At the country level, Finland has a positive history of benchmarking successfully implemented by universities and Technicall Educational Centers (TEC). Its Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) is an independent expert body assisting universities, polytechnics and the Ministry of Education in matters relating to assessments.
This Council strongly emphasizes the role of Higher Education institutions in assessments, as well as a focus on communicating such assessments in evaluation projects.
Its main tasks are:
Assist Higher Education institutions and the Ministry of Education.
Conduct assessments for the accreditation of polytechnics.
Organize assessments of Higher Education activities and policies.
Initiate assessments in Higher Education and promote their development.
Engage in international cooperation on assessment matters.
Promote research in Higher Education assessments.
Assess study programs.
Assess institutions and audit work quality.
Schedule and decide assessment topics. Assessments requested by the Ministry of Education.
Select centers of excellence in education and adult learning, as well as the regional impact of polytechnics, for resource allocations based on performance.
Higher Education Statistics Agency
Effective Assessment by JISC
Some EQAC accredited institutions
