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

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). …