International Higher Education, Spring 2003

The International Role of U.S.-Recognized Accrediting Organizations

In fall 2001, the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) surveyed the 78 institutional (regional and national) and programmatic accreditors in the United States that are recognized by the CHEA and U.S. Department of Education. The purpose of the survey was to learn whether and to what extent these accreditors operate internationally.

General Findings
The 53 accreditors who responded to the 2001 survey included 5 national accreditors, 6 regional accreditors, and 42 specialized/professional accrediting organizations. Twenty-nine of the organizations (62.9 percent) indicated that they were operating internationally. This included all 5 (100 percent) of the responding national accreditors, all 6 (100 percent) of the responding regional accreditors, and 18 of the 42 (42.8 percent) responding specialized accreditors.

These 29 organizations were accrediting 461 institutions and programs in 65 countries outside the United States as of fall 2001. They also accredit 9 non-U.S. institutions operating within the United States. Two of the 53 organizations have separate standards for accrediting internationally.

The predominant type of international activity varies with the type of accreditor. For example, regional accreditors are more involved in accrediting U.S. institutions operating outside the United States, while specialized accreditors are more active in accrediting non-U.S. programs operating outside the United States. Almost all the international activity of U.S. accreditors is with site-based operations. Only two specialized accreditors reported reviewing distance-based offerings and each accredits one distance-based operation.

U.S. Institutions and Programs Outside the United States
Sixteen of the 53 responding organizations (30.1 percent) accredit U.S. institutions or programs operating outside the United States. This includes 2 of 5 national accrediting organizations (40 percent), 5 of 6 regional accrediting organizations (83.3 percent), and 9 of 42 specialized accrediting organizations (21.4 percent).

These 16 organizations accredit 225 U.S. institutions or programs operating outside the United States. National organizations accredit 9 operations; regional organizations accredit 194 operations; and specialized organizations accredit 22 operations.

Non-U.S. Institutions and Programs Outside the United States
Twenty-four of the 53 respondents (45.2 percent) are accrediting non-U.S. institutions or programs operating outside the United States. This includes all 5 (100 percent) of the national accreditors (100 percent), 2 of the 6 regional accreditors (33.3 percent), and 17 of the 42 specialized accreditors (40.4 percent). These 24 organizations accredit 236 institutions or programs: national organizations accredit 37 operations; regional organizations accredit 11 operations; and specialized organizations accredit 188 operations.

Non-U.S. Institutions and Programs Inside the United States
One national organization accredits three operations and four regional organizations accredit six operations. None of the responding specialized organizations accredit institutions or programs in this category.

Separate Standards
Two of the 53 responding accreditors (3.7 percent) have developed separate accreditation standards for review of institutions or programs outside the United States. Both are specialized accreditors.

Site-based or Distance-based Operations
Of the 23 accreditors that responded to this question, only 2 specialized organizations indicated that they reviewed distance learning operations, and each had accredited one such operation. All other institutions and programs were described as site-based operations.

Discussion
The 2001 CHEA survey indicates that U.S. accreditors have a considerable international presence, with 29 organizations accrediting 461 institutions and programs in 65 countries outside the United States and 9 non-U.S. operations in the United States. Conversations with the accreditors and with quality assurance colleagues in other countries strongly suggest that there will continue to be some demand for U.S. accreditation.

As U.S. accreditors expand their international operation, they are increasingly part of discussions about appropriate mechanisms to assure quality in an international setting. This discussion usually revolves around three questions: should we maintain our primary reliance on nation-based quality review organizations and expand communication and formal agreements among countries to address the quality of higher education? Do we need international standards to assure the quality of higher education? What is the role of the World Trade Organization and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiations on liberalization of trade in services that include higher education and quality review?

CHEA's recent conversations with U.S. accreditors indicate that, in general, U.S. accrediting organizations prefer to expand communication and cooperation with nation-based quality assurance bodies to address quality internationally. While not a formal position taken by CHEA or U.S. accrediting organizations, this does suggest a preferred approach at this point in a complex and evolving conversation.

In contrast, organizations that are central to quality review of higher education in an international setting, such as the International Association of University Presidents (IAUP) and the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE), believe that international standards are needed for quality in higher education. These organizations focus on the growing globalization of higher education and the call for shared understanding about quality judgments in various countries.

Some supranational organizations are giving increasing attention to quality assurance as well. These include UNESCO, the World Bank, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. In general, these organizations favor the development of regional or international quality standards as they focus on the role of higher education in the economic development of individual countries.

In this context, the GATS negotiations on liberalization of trade in services are also producing considerable debate--and, in some quarters, consternation--about whether and how quality review of higher education should be addressed in an arena dedicated to trade issues. This concern focuses on whether trade negotiations about "liberalization" will ultimately produce additional regulation of higher education and quality review treated as commodities for consumers. The higher education sector sees itself as offering an experience of considerable depth and complexity (as opposed to a commodity) and sees its students as vital contributors to a community of learning (rather than as disconnected consumers of some commodity).

Many issues and questions confront U.S. accreditors and those engaged in accreditation and quality assurance in many other countries. The continuing expansion of higher education and quality review in an international setting will be accompanied by an ongoing and robust international conversation intended to address these issues and answer the questions.

Note: This article is based on Letter from the President, August 2002 available at the CHEA website <www.chea.org>.