Hi everyone –
The following are excerpts drawn from several journals pertaining to the history,
purpose, and changing face of higher education accrediting boards in the United States.
I think you will find that these organizations have a rich history beginning in the 1800s. I
hope you find the information interesting and our incentive fun!
Cyndy Grey, DM
Faculty Chair, SACS Working Group
Source:
Bardo, J.W. (2009). The impact of the changing climate for accreditation on the individual college or
university: Five trends and their implications. New Directions for Higher Education, (145), 47-58.
Doi:10.1002/he.334
Key National Issues in Accreditation
The Spellings Commission report, A Test of Leadership: Charting the future of U.S. Higher Education has
been taken as a major wake up call for both higher education institutions and the regional accrediting
bodies . . . the most visible indicator of the changing landscape of accreditation . . . . two other trends . ..
are more fundamental: a higher level of concern with higher education costs, productivity and outcomes
that cuts across the political spectrum and a shift by regional associations, and higher education itself, to
accreditation standards that are much more outcomes based then in the past (p. 48).
Balance Between government Regulation and Peer Review
Members of Congress . . . are demanding accountability for many aspects of higher education’s
operations . . . . There is no indication that either party is content with the current state of higher
education. Therefore, it is likely that there will be continued efforts to ratchet up regulation of higher
education and demand major increases in accountability for student learning outcomes and cost
containment (p. 49).
Congress . . . [has] reaffirmed the integrity of the current regional accreditation process (p. 49).
Student Learning and Assessment
There will continue to be a focus on increasing accountability relating to student learning outcomes that
transcend individual course grades . . . . It is generally discussed [that there is ] the need to establish
clear and convincing evidence of high-level effective student learning (p. 49).
Most regional associations have adopted some form of learning outcomes as part of their accreditation
process . . . . The Southern Association of colleges and Schools (SACS) has established its quality
enhancement plan (QEP) . . . . While approaches differ, they all have similar characteristics: they focus
on improving or enhancing education, they are institutionally driven, and they must be part of a
coherent institutional planning process (p. 50).
Source:
Brittingham, B. (2009). Accreditation in the United States: How did we get to where we are? New Directions
for Higher Education, (145), 7-27. Doi: 10.1002/he.331
American accreditation is unique in the world.
No other country has a system like ours; among quality assurance systems, the American system stands
out in three dimensions:
1. Accreditation is a non-governmental, self-regulatory, peer review system.
2. Nearly all of the work is done by volunteers.
3. Accreditation relies on the candor of institutions to assess themselves against a set of
standards, viewed in the light of their mission, and identify their strengths and concerns,
using the process itself or IMPROVEMENT. (p. 10)
The U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the Congress each had a role in establishing an
environment in which accreditation could develop. First, whereas accreditation in other countries is
generally a function of the ministry of higher education, the U.S. Constitution provides that matters not
mentioned in it are left to the states and to the people. So while the federal government has become
more prominent in matters of education, the early development of the education system in this country
was left free of government control, allowing the establishment of a diverse array of colleges and
universities. The lack of government regulation also meant there was no clear and uniform floor on the
minimum expectations for a college or a college education, leaving a vacuum that accreditation grew to
fill. Thus the social interest in having a sense of minimum standards was in part responsible for
development of accreditation (p. 10).
Accreditation reflects American cultural values
The New England Association of Schools and Colleges was founded in 1885 . . . in concert with a group of
college presidents led by Charles Eliot of Harvard, gathered to consider their mutual interests in
ensuring that preparatory and secondary school graduates were ready for college. Accrediting
associations were established . . . providing the foundation for self-regulation and the independence
that has helped accreditation preserve the autonomy of institutions (p. 11).
The history of regional accreditation of various types of institutions of higher education reflects
increasing diversity of institutions of higher education and increasing access (p. 11)
Americans also believe in self-improvement, an activity requiring self-evaluation and identification of
areas that could benefit from enhancement. In accreditation, this value manifests itself in the
expectation that the institution will demonstrate candor in reviewing itself against the standards . . .
showing that the institution has the capacity and inclination for honest self-assessment, the basis of self
regulation and continuous improvement (p. 12).
The rapid rise in the number of institutions, and the types of institutions, increased the interest in a
means of identifying institutions of trustworthy educational quality (p. 13).
Accrediting associations started at a time when there were enough institutions operating with
essentially no government oversight that it was useful to begin keeping lists of what peers believed were
legitimate institutions . . . . Accreditation became useful to the government when there was sufficient
financial aid support to require a means of ensuring that the money followed students who were
enrolled in educationally satisfactory institutions (p. 14).
Between 1950 and 1965, the regional accrediting organizations developed and adopted what are
considered today’s fundamentals in the accreditation process: a mission based approach, standards, a
self-study prepared by the institution, a visit by a team of peers who produced a report, and a decision
by a commission overseeing a process of periodic review (p. 14-15).
Accreditation as practiced in the United States focuses heavily on the future, on quality improvement,
unlike systems built solely or predominantly to ensure the quality of the current operation and identify
fixes that need to be made . . . . The various regional accreditors have different ways of emphasizing this
forward nature in their self-study process. For example, SACS relies on a quality enhancement plan
(QEP) to focus on improvement in an area of identified institutional importance (p. 18).
Participation in accreditation is good professional development (p. 19).
Self-regulation, when it works, is a far better system than government regulation . . . . Regulation seeks
uniformity, whereas self regulation is open to differences (p. 19).
Accreditation gathers a highly diverse set of institutions under a single tent, providing conditions that
support student mobility for purposes of transfer and seeking a higher degree (p. 19).
[The] scrutiny of academic quality in higher education is influenced by two recent trends:
1. Higher education is more important than ever before. . . . Over a lifetime, a worker with a
bachelor’s degree has estimated earnings nearly twice that of a high school graduate.
2. Higher education is more expensive than ever before in terms of both direct cost during the
college years and the accumulation of debt upon leaving higher education. By 2006,
approximately two-thirds of students with a bachelor’s degree graduated with debt that
averaged nearly twenty thousand dollars (p. 23).
Accreditation developed within the freedoms given higher education as the United States developed.
Reflecting the American culture, accreditation has provided the context in which American’s prized
diversity of colleges and universities has developed (p. 26).
Source:
Donahoo, S., & Lee, W.Y. (2008). Serving two masters: Quality and conflict in the accreditation of religious
institutions. Christian Higher Education, 7(4), 319-338. Doi: 10.1080/15363750802000363
Structured as a voluntary process, accreditation helps to bring some accountability to higher education
by monitoring the educational quality of participating institutions . . . regional associations . . . establish
and maintain certain norms and expectations for the institutions that seek their approval (p. 319).
In the United States, the foundation for the modern accreditation system developed in 1847 when the
American Medical Association (AMA) became the first nonprofit association established to set and
maintain professional standards. The existing regional education accreditation agencies developed soon
after the AMA in the following order: the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) in
1885, the Middle States Association of Schools and Colleges (MSA) in 1887, both the North Central
Association of Schools and Colleges (NCASC) and the Southern Association of Schools and Colleges
(SACS) in 1895, the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges (NWASC) in 1917, and the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) in 1962 (p. 320).
Federal Funding opportunities still require that eligible institutions maintain accreditation in order to
receive support (p. 321).
Source:
Myers, S. (2008). School Accreditation. School Accreditation – Research Starters Education, 1. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost July 31, 2011.
Accreditation caries value for students, administrators, instructors, districts, school board members, and
taxpayers (p. 3)
Since they are the recipients of a school’s educational programming, students are the group most
affected by accreditation . . . . Because accreditation testifies to the quality of a student’s education,
colleges prefer accepting students from accredited schools (p 3).
Accreditation can also be valuable to both school administrators and instructors as it provides them with
the opportunity to work toward educational improvement. The self-study process can give these groups
a better understanding of their roles with the overall operations of the school, and can help clarify the
individual purposes. By giving instructors and administrators the opportunity to analyze present
teaching and learning conditions, the self-study process provides direction for the planning and
implementation of any needed improvements . . . accreditation provides schools . . . with a plan for
school review and improvement that they can use to stay in compliance with local, state, and federal
mandates (p. 3)
Taxpayers can also find value in accreditation as it assures them that their schools are using tax money
to support rigorous academic standards and meaningful programs (p. 4).
Although schools are not required to maintain accreditation, losing accreditation status can affect a
school’s prestige and cause it to lose students . . . . Students who have choice will prefer to attend
accredited schools . . . . Schools that seek and maintain accreditation demonstrate their desire and
ability to uphold high academic standards and continuous improvement (p. 4).