Navigating similarities and differences in national and international accreditation standards

Abstract

Purpose Understanding and navigating the differences in standards, and the roots and rationales underlying accreditation reviews, is necessary for all institutions that seek multiple accreditations. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate a method to assist institutional-level leaders and assessment practitioners analyze and align these differences in various national or international agency requirements, to develop a framework for assessment and data collection. The proposed method is demonstrated by using multiple accreditors’ standards from the USA. Design/methodology/approach Guided by a set of process questions, a review and content analysis of national standards and 12 accreditation agency requirements from the USA was conducted using Web-based, documentary sources. An operational definition of institutional quality was derived based on the core themes that emerged. Examples of evidence matched to each core theme were outlined to suggest an assessment framework. The 12 US agency requirements were compared and contrasted with the core themes and validated. Findings In the USA, recognition requirements set by two national bodies, the US Department of Education and Council of Higher Education Accreditation, drive the standards applied by various agencies that accredit institutions and programs. Six themes emerged from their requirements, serving as a core framework for designing institutional assessment systems. The themes are student achievement and continuous improvement; curriculum quality; faculty; facilities, equipment and supplies; fiscal and administrative capacity; and student support services, admissions and information-gathering systems. While the 12 sampled accreditation agencies generally used these core themes, divergences were found in how they treated the themes in published requirements. Practical implications Where multiple US or other accreditations are sought, the approach recommended could facilitate the work of institutional accreditation leaders and practitioners in establishing assessment systems that reduce redundancy while also maximizing efficiency in assessment and data collection. Originality/value There is little guidance in the literature on how institutional leaders and practitioners confronting the challenges of accreditation can negotiate multiple, and sometimes conflicting, sets of requirements. This paper demonstrates a possible solution strategy. Outside the general utility of the demonstrated method, the findings and core assessment framework produced could be useful for institutions seeking accreditation through the agencies in the study sample, in both the USA and overseas.

Optimal Standards to Measure the Quality of Higher Education Institutions in Oman: Stakeholders’ Perception

“…HEIs are challenged with the complexity of identifying differences and similarities in the processes and standards set by these bodies. HEI professionals leading accreditation processes therefore struggle with the complexity involved in meeting the various criteria set by accreditation bodies (Cheng, 2015;Ramírez, 2015;Wilkerson, 2017;Zhang & Gao, 2012). According to Johnson (2019), in the United States, there are "growing concerns surrounding accreditation, what it means to students, how it impacts and assures quality of academic programs" (p. 181).…”

Using the Joint Standards to Design Postsecondary Assessments With Evidence of Validity and Reliability: An Approach to CAEP Accreditation

“…Accreditation of teacher and other professional educator programs is conducted by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) as part of the quality assurance and accountability movement that frames all accreditation in the United States (Wilkerson, ). Educator Preparation Programs (abbreviated “EPPs” by CAEP) are held accountable for the quality of the candidates produced, as are the professionals prepared in other academic disciplines.…”

Rubrics meeting quality assurance and improvement needs in the accreditation context

“…The expectations in K-12 parallel the expectations in institutions of higher education (IHEs), and these expectations must be met for IHEs in all countries seeking recognition. All USAbased accreditation agencies must be recognized by either the Council for Accreditation of Higher Education or the US Department of Education, which require a focus on student achievement and continuous improvement (a.k.a., QA and QI) (Wilkerson, 2017).…”