Tag Archives: accreditation

HOW CAN ACCREDITATION ADAPT TO ACCOMMODATE NEW EDUCATIONAL MODELS LIKE CODING ACADEMIES AND MICROCREDENTIALS

Leave a reply

Traditional higher education accreditation faces challenges in assessing the quality of emerging educational providers that offer new credential types like nanodegrees and microcredentials. Coding academies in particular offer short, intensive, skills-focused programs to teach software development outside the traditional degree framework. Meanwhile, universities and colleges are also experimenting with microcredentials to demonstrate mastery of specific skills or competencies.

For accreditors to properly evaluate these new models, they will need to broaden their standards and review processes. Where accreditation traditionally focused on evaluating institutions based on inputs like facilities and faculty credentials, it will now also need to consider competency-based outputs and student outcomes. Accreditors can draw lessons from the coding academy model that emphasizes demonstrating career readiness over credit hours or degree attainment.

A key first step for accreditors is to establish consistent definitions for terms like microcredentials and alternative providers. Without consensus on what these represent, it becomes difficult to regulate quality. Accreditors should convene stakeholders from traditional and non-traditional education to define domains, credential types, and expected learning outcomes. Common terminology is crucial to building acceptance of new credentials in the labor market and by employers.

Once definitions are clarified, accreditors must adapt their evaluation criteria. Historically, accreditation centered on traditional measures like curriculum design, faculty qualifications, library resources, and physical infrastructure. For non-degree programs, alternative inputs may be more relevant like training methodology, learning materials, placement rates, industry partnerships, and learner feedback. Accreditors need review standards that recognize the instructional design behind competency-based and experiential models not centered around courses or credit hours.

Accreditors also need processes flexible enough to evaluate providers delivering education in non-traditional ways. Coding academies for example may operate entirely online, offer training in flexible modules, and focus more on portfolio demonstration than exams or assignments. Assessment of learning outcomes and career readiness becomes particularly important for these models versus traditional measures of institutional resources. Accreditors will benefit from piloting new evaluation approaches tailored for competency-based and skills-focused credentials.

Extending accreditation to alternative providers protects learners and helps build the credibility of new credential types. The compliance burden of accreditation could discourage innovative models if requirements are not appropriately tailored. Accreditors might consider multiple tiers or categories of recognition accounting for differences in providers like size, funding model, degree of government recognition sought. They could develop fast-track or preliminary approval processes to help new programs demonstrate quality without discouraging experimentation.

Accreditors play a crucial role in raising standards across higher education and validating the value of credentials for students, employers and society. As new education models emerge, accreditation must thoughtfully adapt its processes and criteria to maintain this important oversight and quality assurance function, while still cultivating promising innovations. With care and stakeholder input, accreditors can extend their purview in a way that both protects learners and encourages continued growth of alternative pathways increasingly demanded in today’s changing job market.

For accreditation to properly evaluate emerging education models like coding academies and microcredentials, it needs to broaden its quality standards beyond traditional inputs to also consider competency-based outputs and student outcomes. Key steps include establishing common definitions, adapting evaluation criteria, piloting flexible assessment approaches, and ensuring requirements do not discourage needed innovation while still extending important consumer protections for alternative providers and credential types. Done right, accreditation can promote high-quality options outside traditional degrees in service of lifelong learning.

WHAT ARE SOME POTENTIAL REFORMS BEING DISCUSSED TO IMPROVE THE ACCREDITATION PROCESS

Leave a reply

The higher education accreditation process in the United States is intended to ensure that colleges and universities meet thresholds of quality, but there have been ongoing discussions about ways the system could be reformed or improved. Some of the major reforms being debated include:

Streamlining the accreditation process. The full accreditation process from initial self-study through site visits and decision making can take several years to complete. Many argue this lengthy process is bureaucratic and wastes resources for both the institutions and accreditors. Reforms focus on simplifying documentation requirements, allowing for more concurrent reviews where possible, and shortening timelines for decision making. Others counter that thorough reviews are necessary to properly assess quality.

Increasing transparency. Accreditation reviews and decisions are generally not made publicly available in detail due to confidentiality policies. Some advocacy groups are pushing for accreditors to be more transparent, such as publishing full site visit reports and decision rationales. Proponents argue this would provide more accountability and information for students and families. Privacy laws and competitive concerns for institutions have limited transparency reforms so far.

Reducing conflicts of interest. Accreditors rely heavily on peer review, but there are often ties between reviewers and the institutions under review through things like membership on academic boards or advisory roles. Reform efforts look to tighten conflict of interest policies, reduce financial ties between reviewers and reviewees, and bring more outside voices into the process. Others note the value of subject matter expertise during reviews.

Incorporating new quality indicators. Accreditors currently focus heavily on inputs like curriculum, faculty qualifications, facilities and finances. But there are calls to give more weight to outputs and outcomes like post-graduation salaries, debt levels, employment rates, and other metrics of student success. Tracking non-academic development is also an area ripe for reform. Determinng causality and addressing confounding variables is challenging with outcomes.

Encouraging innovation. The accreditation system is sometimes criticized for discouraging innovative practices that fall outside existing standards. Reforms explore ways to safely support experimental programs through parallel accreditation pathways, waiving certain standards for a set time period, or establishing regulatory sandboxes. But balancing quality assurance with flexibility remains a difficult issue.

Comparing accreditors. Despite operating in the same market, individual accreditors have different standards, priorities and levels of rigor. Ideas look at conducting reliability studies across accreditors to see how review outcomes compare given equivalent institutions. More transparency around accreditor performance could help alignment and provide information to guide institutional choices. Variation reflects the diversity of US higher ed.

Addressing for-profit impacts. For-profit colleges have faced more oversight and closures tied to questionable practices and student outcomes. Some argue this highlights a need for enhanced consumer protections within the tripartite accreditation-state-federal oversight system, along with stronger linkage between accreditation and Title IV funding. Others caution against an overly prescriptive one-size-fits-all approach at the risk of stifling innovation.

While the general principles and tripartite structure of US accreditation appear durable, improvements to processes aim to balance quality assurance with flexibility, innovation, and transparency. Meaningful reform faces pragmatic challenges around feasibility of implementation, cost, unintended consequences, and the diversity of stakeholders across American higher education. Most experts argue for cautious, evidence-based advancement that preserves core quality functions while creating a more responsive, accountable and student-centric system over the long term. The higher education landscape is constantly evolving, so ongoing assessment and adjustment of this self-regulatory process will likely remain ongoing topics of policy discussion.