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