Transcript Higher Education Accreditation: A Look at the USA and Japan

Higher Education
Accreditation: A Look at
the USA and Japan
David Werner
Visiting Researcher
Local Human Resources and Public Policy System,
Open Research Center (LORC), Ryukoku University
December 27, 2004
Today’s Presentation: Five Topics
My accreditation Experience
Overview of Accreditation in the USA
Current Issues in Accreditation in the USA
Accreditation in Japan
Accreditation Issues in Japan
My Accreditation Experience
 Academic Administrator
 Accreditor
 Work with National
Associations of Accreditors
 Research on Accreditation
Accreditation Experience as an
Administrator
 North Central






Association, Higher
Learning Commission
AACSB—Business
ADA—Dental Medicine
NCATE—Education
NLNAC—Nursing
CSWE—Social Work
NASPAA—Public
Administration
 ABET—Engineering
 ACCE—Construction
 NASM—Music
 CoA-NA—Nurse
Anesthesia
 ASHA/CAA—Speech
Pathology
 ACPE—Pharmacy
Experience as an Accreditor
 AACSB—Business:
1977—1987
 NCA--Regional Accreditor:
1983—2004
 ADA—Dental Medicine:
1998—2001
 APA—Clinical Psychology:
2002—present
Experience with National Associations
 CHEA: Council for Higher Education
Accreditation
 ASPA: Association of Specialized and
Professional Accreditors
Purpose of Accreditation
Mechanism for quality assurance
-to the public
-to prospective students
-to parents
Process for continuous improvement
Philosophy of Accreditation
Non-governmental
- US distrust of government
-state vs. national government
Voluntary
Peer review
Structure: Three Types of Accreditors
Regional Accreditors: Accredit Entire Institution
-Six Regions
-Similar to the JUAA
National Accreditors: Accredit Institutions
-Six recognized National Accreditors
Specialized Accreditors: Accredit Programs
-About 60 Specialized Accreditors
-Accreditation in “professional” fields
-Like JABEE
Brief History of Accreditation in USA
 First regional accrediting agency in 1885
 First accreditation action: 1910
 First specialized accrediting agency in
1907—medicine
 Accrediting agencies added in response to:
-growth of higher education
-development of new fields of study
-response to professions
 Accreditation and accrediting agencies
change continually
Who “Accredits” the Accreditors?
 Approval Process Called “Recognition”
 National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and Integrity
(US Department of Education)
 Council for Higher Education
Accreditation
National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and Integrity
 Unit of Federal Government
“Recognizes” (Approves) Accreditors
Five year review cycle
Recognition provides
-status to the agency
-makes students eligible for Federal
Financial Aid
Makes accreditation “semi-voluntary”
 Published Criteria for Recognition
Council for Higher Education
Accreditation
 Not-for-Profit Organization
-Universities and colleges are members
 Recognition provides status and
legitimacy
 No connection between CHEA
recognition and financial aid
 Published Criteria for Recognition
Accreditation Not the Only Means of
Quality Control in US
 Internal Program Review
 Public Universities Review by State
Government
 Review by System Administration
 License to Practice in Some Fields
Current Issues in Accreditation in US
 Focus of standards: Inputs, Processes,
Educational Outcomes
 Confidentiality
 Proliferation of Accrediting Agencies
Issue 1: What Focus of Standards?
Resources
Processes
Educational
Outcomes
Historical Focus: Resources and
Processes
 Resources:
 Financial
Resources
 Number of Faculty,
 Faculty Qualifications
 Support Staff
 Quality of Students
 Library Resources
 Physical Facilities
Historical Focus: Resources and
Processes
Processes:
Graduation
Requirements
Curriculum
Academic
Policies
Student Policies
Student Services
New Focus: Educational Outcomes
 What have students learned?
 What skills have students developed?
 Have graduates found jobs?
 What kinds of jobs?
 At what companies or institutions?
 How do graduates rate their educational
experience?
Why this new focus?
 Assumption underlying looking at resources
and processes is not correct.
 Purpose of education is learning;
accreditation should focus on learning.
 Focus on resources often misused to justify
adding resources to programs
Achieving a Balance: Resources,
Processes, and Educational Outcomes
 Accreditation decisions need to be forward
looking
 Student outcomes tell how the program has
performed in past.
 Need to look at resources and processes to
determine if educational outcomes will
continue
 Therefore: resources, processes, and
outputs should all be reviewed
Issue 2: Confidentiality: Historic
 Only accreditation decision made
public:
 Accredited
 On
probation
 Not accredited
 Self-study, site visit reports, confidential
Issue 3: Growth of Accrediting
Agencies
 About 60 specialized accrediting agencies
 Some presidents want to restrict emergence
of new agencies
 Some want accreditation limited to fields
involving health and public safety
 Pressures from new professions
Accreditation in Japan: Past
 Quality Control Focused on Approval to
Operate by MEXT
 Quality Control the Responsibility of
Institutions, not an External Agency
 JUAA Formed in 1950’s
 Many JUAA accredited institutions not
reviewed for over 50 years.
 National Universities under control of MEXT
Changes in Japan: Education Law
Amended
Accreditation now required of all universities
National Universities now NPOs
-NIAD-UE to Evaluate National Universities
-Results to be made public
MEXT to “recognize” accreditors
-Similar to DoE Approval in US
-NIAD-UE; JUAA; Possibly Others
Japan Accreditation: Questions
 What accrediting agencies will MEXT
approve?
Institutional and Specialized?
 What will be the effect of using “third party”
reviewers?
 What information will be released to the
public?
 How will the release of information affect the
accreditation process?
Issues to be Addressed in Starting an
Accrediting Agency
 What will be the organizational structure of
the agency?
 What relationship will the agency have to the
profession or the universities?
 How will the agency be funded?
 What will be the scope of accreditation?
 Who will apply the standards to make
accreditation decisions?
 How will the decision makers be selected?
More Questions
 On what will the accreditation standards
focus?
 What information will be released to the
public?
 Who will be the site visitors? How many?
 How will site visitors be trained?
 How will conflicts of interest be managed?
 For how long will accreditation be granted?
 How can negative decisions be appealed?
Conclusion
Accreditation is Complex
Answers to these questions depend on:
 culture
of the society
 culture
of the profession
Improving by Working Together:
American Examples
 Much to learn from each other
 ASPA and CRAC as examples
-ASPA: Specialized Accreditors
-CRAC: Regional Accreditors
Thank you!
Questions are welcomed