What's an Accrediting Agency Supposed to Do? Institutional Quality and Improvement vs. Regulatory Compliance.

委派 高等教育 代理(哲学) 政府(语言学) 公共关系 质量(理念) 公共行政 政治学 业务 社会学 法学 社会科学 语言学 哲学 认识论
作者
Elizabeth H. Sibolski
出处
期刊:Planning for higher education 卷期号:40 (3): 22-28 被引量:8
链接
摘要

Do everything possible to let others know that we are open to discussion and that we do not believe that everything we do is perfect way it is. The higher education community and institutions of higher learning generally approve of voluntary peer process for quality assurance. In an article entitled There's A Lot That's Right About Regional Accreditation; Judith Eaton (2009, U 4) noted that Perhaps most important, regional accreditation is successful model of powerful professional peer process by which academic quality can be judged. Peer is acknowledged throughout world as most appropriate and desirable approach to evaluation of such complex areas as higher education. In thinking about accreditation, it is important to keep in mind that U.S. higher education is not monolithic and that various institutional sectors do not necessarily agree on what process of peer should entail. For example, there is no agreement across sectors and institutions as to whether and how student learning outcomes should be assessed. The federal government wants to assure that higher education delivered in United States meets high-quality standards because higher education has become increasingly essential in developing citizenry prepared to participate in knowledge-driven economy. A huge amount of federal funding (now reported to be more than $175 billion) goes into higher education annually (National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity 2011), and it is clear that government and general public have right to know that these funds are well spent. At same time, press and Congress (especially Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) have investigated and made public number of situations in which it is clear that, at very least, students have been misled and, in worst cases, subject to fraud and abuse. The money involved, high stakes of higher education, and bad actor factor have naturally resulted in moves to protect public interest through increasingly granular regulation and processes. Add to this mix fact that Higher Education Act is renewed and revised every few years, and in months leading up to reauthorization, there is always debate about how to improve law and regulations that flow from it. Current debate springs from passage of Higher Education Opportunity Act in 2008 and ongoing related regulatory activity. In addition, act will once again be up for and reauthorization shortly, and cycle will start again. The higher education community supports peer and institutional improvement as means of assuring quality, but debates what should be involved. The federal government seeks to protect public interest and public purse through accountability, transparency, and compliance with regulation. All of this produces ongoing tensions in and for accreditation. Focus on institutional improvement or on compliance - what should an accrediting agency do? The Context for U.S. Higher Education Accreditation A few words about higher education accreditation in United States may be useful for readers who are not familiar with subject. Those who are familiar with structure of accreditation in United States may wish to skip this section. One important set of current definitions of accreditation is provided by U.S. Department of Education: accreditation is the status of public recognition that an accrediting agency grants to an educational institution or program that meets agency's standards and requirements;1 and an accrediting agency is entity that conducts accrediting activities through voluntary, non-Federal peer review (U.S. Department of Education 2012, p. 4). An agency that meets department's requirements and demonstrates that its standards are rigorous and effective is determined to be a reliable authority regarding quality of education or training provided by institutions or programs it accredits (National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity 2012, U 1). …

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
smiling发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
Allen完成签到,获得积分10
1秒前
jenniefer完成签到,获得积分10
1秒前
kez发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
2秒前
Mm完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
3秒前
jar7989完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
Jasper应助健壮的芷容采纳,获得10
5秒前
惜寒完成签到 ,获得积分10
5秒前
爱静静应助mmmio采纳,获得50
5秒前
水门发布了新的文献求助30
5秒前
5秒前
6秒前
7秒前
7秒前
7秒前
7秒前
LSS发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
jjhh完成签到,获得积分10
9秒前
10秒前
领导范儿应助EZAIJ采纳,获得10
11秒前
幸福大白发布了新的文献求助10
11秒前
星辰大海应助时尚战斗机采纳,获得10
11秒前
12秒前
Petrichor发布了新的文献求助10
12秒前
12秒前
13秒前
77发布了新的文献求助10
13秒前
M27发布了新的文献求助10
13秒前
伶俐曼雁完成签到,获得积分10
14秒前
小贝应助fwhhhh采纳,获得10
15秒前
allezallez完成签到,获得积分10
15秒前
于海欣完成签到,获得积分10
15秒前
alexlpb完成签到,获得积分10
15秒前
爱吃火锅的lulu完成签到 ,获得积分10
16秒前
李先生完成签到,获得积分10
16秒前
16秒前
且放青山远完成签到,获得积分10
18秒前
852应助阔达蓝血采纳,获得10
18秒前
高分求助中
Continuum Thermodynamics and Material Modelling 3000
Production Logging: Theoretical and Interpretive Elements 2700
Mechanistic Modeling of Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Flow in Pipes 2500
Structural Load Modelling and Combination for Performance and Safety Evaluation 1000
Conference Record, IAS Annual Meeting 1977 720
電気学会論文誌D(産業応用部門誌), 141 巻, 11 号 510
Typology of Conditional Constructions 500
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 生物 医学 工程类 有机化学 生物化学 物理 纳米技术 计算机科学 内科学 化学工程 复合材料 基因 遗传学 物理化学 催化作用 量子力学 光电子学 冶金
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 3567203
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 3139723
关于积分的说明 9433132
捐赠科研通 2840473
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1561079
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 730189
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 717869