Accreditation: Disruption or Evolution? (Part 1)
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Plusone Stumbleupon

Accreditation: Disruption or Evolution? (Part 1)

The growing push for a more accountable higher education system and reportable results is forcing institutions to reconsider traditional accreditation criteria.

The following is the first of a two-part series by Chari Leader-Kelley on the accreditation of non-collegiate-sponsored training and education providers. In this article, Leader-Kelley outlines a few different scenarios that many first-generation postsecondary students are finding themselves in and discusses the importance of transparency and accountability in higher education.

Scenario 1:

A student graduates from high school, immediately attends college and takes five years to complete a bachelor of science in sports management. This student also graduates with $25,000 in student loans and zero job prospects. He is considering graduate school, deferring his student loans, racking up another $25,000 in debt and hoping for a job three years from now.

Should this student go to graduate school? Would he be better off taking a job at a telemarketing firm or with a temporary agency instead?

Scenario 2:

A single parent earning $30,000 a year registers for college seeking a better career pathway and some form of assurance she will have a better economic future.  She struggles to complete two courses per semester, eventually dropping out of college after two years with a debt of $10,000. She later re-enrolls only to find many of her courses will not transfer, and her course choices no longer fit her new career plan. Her future is uncertain and her new college has an accelerated program with a much higher tuition rate, bundled with financing.

Does she know what her real chances are for completing the degree, being able to pay off her debt over time and truly earning more money with some job security?

These scenarios are very real for today’s college students, particularly first-generation students.  In fact, over the next decade, increasing numbers of cash-strapped adults will be asking, “Should I complete a bachelor’s degree, or go on to get a master’s degree, in order to be eligible for better-paying jobs or career pathways?”

What assurances do prospective students have that the education they will be paying for (likely for many years to come) will indeed yield the opportunities of their dreams?

These are the underpinning issues that have caused many to question the effectiveness of accreditation in today’s environment. Accreditation has been a process (at least for the regional accrediting bodies) focused on self-study, strategic planning, adequate resources, governance and collegiality and peers reviewing peers — all in a somewhat voluntary system.  Anyone who has worked at a college knows the main emphasis has been on how well a college articulates and embodies its mission. And a mission statement is drafted carefully to be sufficiently vague to allow virtually any activity the college/university seeks to undertake to relate to its mission. However, much that has been traditionally expected — the institutional self-study, evidence of data-driven decisions, student retention and graduation and faculty governance — has tilted the process and measures of accreditation off balance.  Processes designed for traditional institutions serving traditional students no longer align with today’s mobile, older and more career-driven students attending college while balancing multiple commitments. The tension is ramping up as state and federal governments seek a better return on their investments in today’s colleges and universities, particularly with an uncertain economy ahead.

Policymakers are calling for transparency and accountability, the likes of which colleges and universities have been immune from or easily able to dodge. At the same time, President Obama’s push for “institutional report cards” tied to Title IV funding, while unlikely to actually be approved as envisioned, may improve transparency for the consumer as well as assist accreditors in boiling down key indicators of quality.

This is the first of a two-part series. To the read the final installment, please click here.

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Plusone Stumbleupon
Government Legislation and Regulations, Institutional Governance, Opinions

Tags:

Subscribe to The EvoLLLution, Get Premium Content And Stay Up To Date

3 Responses to Accreditation: Disruption or Evolution? (Part 1)

  1. Will Wright Reply

    2013/10/18 at 11:51 am

    I agree with the author that it’s time to overhaul the accreditations process and reconsider what we use to measure quality. However, the issue is that different institutions, depending on their mission statements (as vague as they may be), have different ways of demonstrating quality and value. It’s hard to imagine having a one-size-fits-all system to measure institutional effectiveness, as Obama is suggesting.

  2. Erica M Reply

    2013/10/21 at 11:07 am

    I appreciate the discussion higher education stakeholders are starting to have around accreditation. It’s difficult because many institutions don’t want to consider the possibility that they would have to change what they’ve been doing for so long in order to meet any new criteria that are developed. Perhaps the President’s statements regarding “institutional report cards” and Title IV funding are just the incentive institutions need to begin this important conversation.

  3. Mika Hoffman Reply

    2013/10/21 at 3:26 pm

    I agree that one size does not fit all. But in a general sense, accreditation is essentially an assurance that someone reputable has checked to make sure the institution is basically trustworthy and knows what it’s doing. Traditionally, that meant that the curricula were reasonable and that students graduating with a degree in X were pretty likely to know something about X. Employability and debt were not really on the radar. I guess the question is whether it’s still a good idea to have a general notion of accreditation as a check that the institution “knows what it’s doing,” with suitable adjustments to what “knows what it’s doing” means, or whether accreditation needs to mean something else.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

© 2014 The EvoLLLution. All rights reserved.