International Higher Education, Spring 2001

American Accrediting and the International Environment

Judith S. Eaton
Judith S. Eaton is president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Address: CHEA, 1 Dupont Circle, Washington, DC 20036. E-mail: <eaton@chea.org>

The interest of U.S. accreditors in expanded international activity and the attention that the international community is giving to U.S. accreditation standards is fueled by the expanding international mobility of students and the rapidly growing world of on-line education offered by distance-learning providers. Other factors are also involved—the need for skilled workers in an information- and service-driven international economy and the international consensus that higher education is central to the success of all economies and global well-being.

Yet, this is a difficult international, regional, and domestic environment in which to pursue the invigorated mutual interest in international quality review. When U.S. accreditors go abroad, they receive mixed reviews. Critics in some countries routinely ask whether the otherwise laudable U.S. commitment to access and participation is too flexible in its expectations concerning institutional quality. Others point to the responsibilities that accompany the dominant U.S. role in the import and export of higher education, urging the United States to do more to protect students in other countries and to improve communication and cooperation with the international community.

Regional Trends
Regionally, Europe is taking on the challenge of creating a “European higher education space” and exploring the feasibility of European accreditation of institutions and organizations. This would place a “European” stamp on the quality review efforts of various countries. While attractive to some leaders in European higher education, the idea of this comprehensive European stamp of quality is of concern to others. The pressure to keep the nation-state as the proper venue for quality judgments about higher education is great.

In Asia, the University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific (UMAP) consortium—a group of government and nongovernment representatives of universities in the region—was formed in 1993, to meet the regional challenge of enhanced student and staff mobility. Because successful credit transfer is ultimately tied to perceptions of institutional quality, UMAP is pressured to establish additional quality assurance ties around the world.

Some of these same countries that are skeptical of greater U.S. presence internationally are experiencing domestic pressures, especially to expand access and participation in higher education within their own borders. South Africa, for example, is facing expectations to expand its higher education capacity while, at the same time, building a comprehensive quality review capacity. Such expectations demand extraordinary efforts from higher education leaders, who are expected to accomplish these goals without sacrificing quality and without additional financial resources.

Central and Eastern Europe is another region in which countries have been charged to expand student access and participation in higher education. To pursue expanded access and the attendant quality issues this raises, some countries have established accreditation councils with a variety of quality review functions. All of these councils must work hard to reconcile the expectations about quality of their traditionally prestigious institutions with the call for expanded access.

U.S. Contributions
What contributions might the U.S. accrediting community make at this time of heightened international interest in quality review? The CHEA repeatedly hears the same responses to this question. The United States could start by providing better information about its own quality review and being more explicit in its descriptions of how American accreditation operates. The United States could also provide better information about the quality of its exports—both the export of higher education offerings and of accreditation techniques. The United States could also vigorously expand efforts to promote cooperation and communication about quality assurance and accreditation throughout the world. These are some steps the United States could take to fulfill its obligations as a good colleague in the international quality review community.

Providing Information
The highly complex and extensive U.S. system is difficult to understand—even for many in the United States. Institutional accreditation is the province of both regional and national accreditors. Programmatic accreditation is the province of specialized and professional accreditors. These accreditors may or may not be recognized and sanctioned either by government or private organizations. The scope of each accreditor is distinctive, and although accreditation practices are similar in many respects, significant variations should be noted.

For international colleagues, understanding the U.S. system is further complicated by confusion in the use of key quality-related terms. Terms such as “accreditation” and “quality assurance” have different meanings in different countries. We have an obligation to improve our understanding of the use of these terms by colleagues in various countries. We would all benefit from a common language of international quality review. The CHEA provides an overview of U.S. accreditation on its website and will soon have a glossary of key accreditation and quality assurance terms available there as well.

The Issue of Quality
The United States is a major importer and exporter of higher education. While many institutions and programs operating internationally are of sound quality, there are others that have questionable practices and offer dubious claims of accredited status. One strategy for U.S. accreditors and international colleagues is to develop an approach that enables potential students and institutions to avoid these kinds of programs and institutions. The CHEA website offers “Twelve Important Questions About External Quality Review” for students looking into different programs. Although these questions were developed for U.S. students attending U.S. site-based or distance-based operations, the CHEA—working with international colleagues—could adapt this model to an international setting.

International Collaboration
U.S. accreditors need to collaborate with their international colleagues to increase mutual understanding of review processes and standards and to promote good practices in quality review. Organizations such as the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education, the Center for Quality Assurance in International Education, and the European Network of Quality Assurance Agencies, as well as the CHEA, are attempting to meet this need through meetings, papers, and projects.

Conclusion
In the current environment, U.S. accreditors must have a strong commitment to assist the international community in obtaining information about U.S. accreditation practices, successes, and limitations. Our long history of accreditation activity should be constructively shared with colleagues in order to meet their needs. We must be good listeners and observers, respecting the diversity of traditions of higher education around the world. We must offer information and ideas in a collegial manner without attempting to influence the judgments of the international community about what is best in various and different countries. Perhaps most important of all, we must be good learners, carefully observing the successes and good practices of our international colleagues. This is an exciting time for international cooperation, and we ought to make the most of it.