Key Concepts of Accreditation

For many years, accrediting organizations established focused and specific guidelines to which a program had to adhere to receive its stamp of approval. For instance, a fixed number of credits, required in a specific area, had been the norm, and any program that wished to be granted accreditation had to offer the required number of credits in relevant areas.

Quality was measured through a checklist of attributes that were expected to be met by the various inputs into learning processes, such as curriculum, teaching faculty, laboratory, and other facilities and resources. The definition of quality, implicit in this approach to accreditation, was that of meeting specific standards, to be followed by every institution.

Some proof exists that in computer science education, this approach is successful. In a study of accredited and nonaccredited programs, Rozanski reports that although similarities and differences exist between these programs, accredited programs have more potential to increase specific quality indicators.

In the past it was straightforward to determine whether a program or institution met the accreditation criteria. A major drawback of this approach was that it forced uniformity among institutions, preventing innovation and the consideration of specialized needs of a program’s or school’s constituencies. Other controversies centered on the expense and time necessary to navigate successfully the process. Smaller schools especially felt the guidelines were targeted toward the larger institution.

Partly in response to concerns and to the danger of a lack of innovation and, at least in the United States, partly under pressure from the federal government, accreditation agencies have moved to an outcomes-based approach, and accreditation criteria now embody a definition of quality more in line with that adopted by many quality improvement approaches, namely ‘‘fitness for purpose’’. The basis for this approach is the premise that quality is multifaceted.

From the overall mission of an institution, units or programs are expected to establish long-term educational objectives or goals, which describe achievements of graduates a few years after graduation, and to derive a set of learning outcomes, which are statements defined as the aforementioned skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students are expected to acquire in their matriculation through the program.

Additionally, an institution or program is expected to establish an assessment process to determine how well its graduates are achieving its objectives and outcomes and to establish a quality enhancement program that uses the data collected through this assessment process to improve the program. Assessment processes foster program improvement by enabling visit teams to make judgments about program effectiveness in preparing graduates for entry into a field.

Some differences exist between the various accreditation agencies concerning the range of decisions that they can make. Clearly, each will have the option of whether to accredit or not. However, different options are available should it be determined that a program or institution does not meet all criteria. For example, some accreditation agencies may reduce the period for which the program or institution is accredited. Alternatively, they may provisionally accredit but make a final decision contingent on an interim report by the program or institution in which it makes clear how it has addressed any weaknesses or concerns identified during the team visit.

Programs continue to be reviewed cyclically. Again, differences exist between the various agencies relative to the maximum length for which a program or institution can be accredited. The ABET CAC maximally accredits a program for 6 years, whereas the AACSB has operated on a 5- or 10-year cycle and is moving more toward the use of maintenance reports.

Clearly, given the importance of the agency in the accreditation process, the question develops concerning the basis used to determine whether an organization can become an accreditation agency. The answer differs from country to country. In many countries, accreditation agencies are governmental or quasi-governmental organizations established through an act or parliament.

In the United States, most accreditation agencies are essentially private organizations. However, under the Higher Education Act, the U.S. Secretary of Education is required to recognize an accreditation agency before students enrolled in programs or institutions accredited by it can receive federal funding.

Also, several professional organizations recognize accreditation agencies, chief among then are the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE) and the Council of Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) in the United States.