1. US Perspectives on Educational Quality, Assessment, and Accreditation
A Presentation
Dr. Joseph G. Burke
Fulbright Specialist, Thailand
June 2013

2. Outline Questions and Answers Describe US values & impact on quality
Outline US quality movement
Rationale and history
Describe US Approach
Questions and Answers

3. US Higher Education: Values & Context

4. Fundamental American Values
Three Scales
- FREEDOM v order
- INDIVIDUAL v society
- LIMITED v powerful government
Strong belief in market approach to societal issues
Values influenced:
Constitution: Federal system and separation of powers
Government policy regarding education & accreditation
Others: health care, gun control

5. US Higher Education Context
No powerful ministry of education
Who’s in Charge?
Feds provide some financial support and broad policy outlines
State/local governments provide financial support and regulation
Multiple non-governmental groups provide “participatory” rule making regimes: commissions, associations, agencies, boards

6. Implications
US higher education system highly diverse & decentralized w/autonomous institutions
Overlapping funding/regulatory structures
Multiple organizations involved in accreditation
Yet system:
“best in the world” reputation
protects academic freedom
Encourages innovative and critical thinking w/entrepreneurial and highly successful graduates

7. Quality Assessment US History
(1983) “A Nation at Risk” report of Reagan era
Decline in learning standards versus rising costs
(1985) “Time for Results” examination of HE
( ) – Rise of Assessment Movement
Phase I – Total Quality Procedures inherited from
Industry (Processes and Industrial- type Awards)
Phase II – Data Compilation
Phase III – Big Question, comparative, and Internationalization Stage
Phase IV -Current
2000 – Growing concern US education system less competitive.
Growing federal intervention

8. Why Assessment Movement?
Atmosphere of accountability
Increased competition in academic marketplace
Constrained fiscal condition requires evidence-based academic management
Technology provides increased capacity to generate, compile, present, and analyze evidence
Use of “Dashboards” (analytics)
Industry provides better management techniques

9. The US APPROACH

10. Institutional Accreditation
Responsibility
Independent regional commissions elected by members
Federal government periodically reviews performance
Comprehensive focus
Resources, governance, faculty qualifications, instructional quality, student performance
Consequence of institutional failure
Elimination of eligibility to participate in federal student aid and financial loan programs

11. Programmatic Accreditation
Responsibility
Commissions chosen by professional membership associations
Some states involved in program approval
Dual Focus
Faculty qualifications, curriculum, student performance
Level of Institutional support
Consequences of failure dependent on professions

12. Accreditation Process
Comprehensive Self Study by institution
Multiday visit by peers, w/report & recommendations
Institution comments
Commission action
Accredit
Accredit with warning and reporting requirement
Not Accredit
Appeal Process

13. Questions for University Council and Administrative Leadership
How Good is our Product
What a student knows and can do upon graduation?
What is the “value added” by the learning process?
How good are we at producing our product?
-retention and graduation rates
Are our customers satisfied?
Do we have the right mix?
Do we make the grade? (Accreditation)

14. Summary Based Upon American Value System
De-centralized w/multiple actors and approaches
Focused on Student Development and Learning
Quality approach Emphasizes formative evaluation and continuous improvement
Accreditation based upon summative evaluation of
Resource availability
Program qualifications and results
Assessment process

15. Comparison of US and Other Approaches to Quality
US tends to disaggregate quality and risk management functions
US less focused on comparative rankings
US has far more diversified and de- centralized approach
Each approach has strengths and weaknesses
US accreditation/educational system under review
National concerns about quality, competitiveness, effectiveness of meeting changing occupational requirements

16. AGB Resources
Peter T. Ewell, Making the Grade, Second Edition, AGB Press, 2012.
“AGB Statement on Board Responsibility for the Oversight of Educational Quality, AGB Press, 2011.
“How Boards Oversee Educational Quality: A Report on a Survey on Boards and the Assessment of Student Learning,” AGB Press,

17. Question and Answers