Major ACTA report highly critical of accreditation

[J]

http://www.goacta.org/publications/Reports/accrediting.pdf

More at:

http://www.goacta.org/publications/newsletters/acta_2003_winter.pdf

The report makes a very cogent case against the current system of accreditation, arguing (amongst other points) that it fails to ensure educational standards because it concentrates on inputs rather than outputs. Thanks to Redlyne Racer for the links.

[Redlyne Racer]

Thanks to Zon 7 for posting the Bergman (http://www.rae.org/cpu.html) article re CPU elsewhere, which caused me to look them up.

[J]

Thanks to Zon 7 for posting the Bergman (http://www.rae.org/cpu.html) article re CPU elsewhere, which caused me to look them up.

Seconded.

[Dennis Ruhl]

Columbia Pacific was pretty much screwed over.

As the most successful California approved school ever, it upset certain sensibilities. Unfortunately it was in WASC's area and their lack of approving totally distance doctoral degrees prevented regional accreditation. They should have done the 35 days and they certainly would have been accredited.

Once DETC gets full bore into doctorates, then there will be an outlet to legitimize non-traditional programs.

[George Brown]

Fantastic finds -thanks so much. I can't seem to find any bibliographic details on the report though - will have to hunt through.

Nonetheless, just the first couple of pages confirms the findings and my arguments in my Master's thesis. Essentially Accreditation does not equal Quality Assurance - they are both different animals. Accreditation is meeting certain standards AT A PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. Quality assurance is the ONGOING maintenance and compliance with those standards - this is the core of the matter.

Cheers,

George

[Redlyne Racer]

Fantastic finds -thanks so much. I can't seem to find any bibliographic details on the report though - will have to hunt through.

Footnotes are at the end of the report, as you will no doubt discover when you get there. The last footnote link in the report was broken (didn't check them all). This is a good link to the "Getting Government Out of Higher Education" article: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/HL533.cfm

Nonetheless, just the first couple of pages confirms the findings and my arguments in my Master's thesis. Essentially Accreditation does not equal Quality Assurance - they are both different animals. Accreditation is meeting certain standards AT A PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. Quality assurance is the ONGOING maintenance and compliance with those standards - this is the core of the matter.


As you said, accreditation is not quality assurance. Perhaps I didn't catch your meaning, but this seems contrary to what you said next. Since the accreditation standards don't purport to measure quality, quality assurance then would not be the ongoing maintenance and compliance with accreditation standards. As stated in the report at p. 19:

"Parents, students and citizens may assume that accreditation ensures good educational quality, but quality is not what the process measures. Accreditation only shows that the school is following what the accreditors think is the proper formula for a successful educational institution, not that it is in fact a successful educational institution. Nothing in the accreditation process measures student achievement to see whether students have made intellectual progress since high school or have attained a level of basic knowledge and competence that would be expected of college graduates."

[George Brown]

Since the accreditation standards don't purport to measure quality, quality assurance then would not be the ongoing maintenance and compliance with accreditation standards.

No, what I mean is accreditation is a snapshot of compliance. An assessment for accreditation standards is done there and then and approval is based on capacity at that point in time. Lets put it this way, as soon as the accreditors go home and or disappear, one can go back to their old ways. It is only through good QA mechanism and measurement of outputs as opposed to inputs, can it be demonstrated that there is ONGOING compliance with the accreditation standards.

Cheers,

George

[Redlyne Racer]

The point of the article was that accreditation standards are virtually meaningless relative to determining educational quality. Demonstrating that there is "ongoing compliance" with accreditation standards would ensure only that the increasingly politically oriented and academically irrelevant accreditation standards are maintained. However vigorously the standards are enforced they would continue to remain irrelevant as a measure of educational quality.

Sorry if I am missing your point, but I fear you aren't quite catching the significance of the report. If existing accreditation standards have no value as a measure of, e.g., academic rigor or curriculum relevance, accreditation does not stand for the things most people commonly believe it to. That being the case, accreditation has little if any value to the consumer as a useful factor in making educational choices.

If the road you are on isn't taking you where you need to go, does it really matter how strictly the cops are enforcing the speed limit?

[George Brown]

Sorry if I am missing your point...

Apology accepted. You are missing my point, but it doesn't matter.

Cheers,

George

[James Grey]

The point of the article was that accreditation standards are virtually meaningless relative to determining educational quality. Demonstrating that there is "ongoing compliance" with accreditation standards would ensure only that the increasingly politically oriented and academically irrelevant accreditation standards are maintained. However vigorously the standards are enforced they would continue to remain irrelevant as a measure of educational quality.

Sorry if I am missing your point, but I fear you aren't quite catching the significance of the report. If existing accreditation standards have no value as a measure of, e.g., academic rigor or curriculum relevance, accreditation does not stand for the things most people commonly believe it to. That being the case, accreditation has little if any value to the consumer as a useful factor in making educational choices.

If the road you are on isn't taking you where you need to go, does it really matter how strictly the cops are enforcing the speed limit?

Accreditation is periodic not enduring or continuous. For it to be effective it would need the element of 'surprise' in the auditing function, and the only time that I have been authorised to do that is when someone is 'to be caught out', or a program is being 'targetted' for a supposed/know shortcoming. So accreditation per se has a serious shortcoming in this respect.

On the other hand accreditation has its place - without it how would we evaluate programs effectively? ... in the context of meeting professional and licensing requirements, and I speak in the context of professional areas where I am on national review committees. Ongoing compliance would be exactly that - ongoing compliance, and in accounting, banking & finance and engineering we have to determine that, and here can do that - it is hard and exacting work but it can be done as it HAS to be done. Because your programs in US are apparently deficient or unreliable, doesn't mean that it can't be accomplished. I can tell you [but of course won't] which programs here in specific areas are borderline, and if improvement hasn't been achieved within the semester people could exit certain courses with a useless degree. that of course will rarely happen as the consequences are so drastic, and people know not to stuff around with us.

George and I have both been auditors in this area, and i still am for target audits, as well as being on 3 professional course accreditation committees.

This article that is being quoted will really suit those who support/purvey substandard educational institutions :rolleyes: - institutions that could never make the grade of educational respectability peopled by studnets and faculty who are as equally deficient.

[J]

This article that is being quoted will really suit those who support/purvey substandard educational institutions :rolleyes: - institutions that could never make the grade of educational respectability peopled by studnets and faculty who are as equally deficient.

That seems to me to be an unduly pessimistic view of a report that has much to offer. Although you state what I see as your support for accreditation as it stands, I don't see the detail of your critique of the report's findings.

What about legitimate unaccredited institutions, or those such as the CA-approved sector who are treated as Cinderellas by some despite having to meet tight standards? What about the possibility of reliance on outcome-based quality assurance rather than input-based accreditation?

"Respectability" is very much in the eye of the beholder. You seem to be espousing the very accredited-or-no-way argument that this report effectively demolishes.

[Robert J.]

I am enrolled in a Bar Qualifying CA Online JD program. Peter's comments that you quote "J" certainly don't apply to me nor any of the fine faculty associated with the institution who are current Attorney's, sitting Judges, etc.

[Redlyne Racer]

I think Peter might have had in mind, e.g., the way the mills grabbed onto the Sosdian & Sharp research regarding the acceptance of non-traditional degrees. I can see where some mill might over-emphasize the report's "accreditation is meaningless" theme, and ignore the more important "academic quality is paramount" one. Certainly that is the worst case scenario, and it does seem a bit cynical to limit one's observations to just that. The report seemed to support a lot of the positive ideals that many of us, including Peter, have embraced by word or deed.