Accreditation in Higher Education

Accreditation in Higher Education.

Author: Tony

Tony’s Papers

Introduction.

The basic aim of accreditation in higher education is to ensure that quality education is offered by post-secondary institutions.  Accreditation is a quality assurance process that involves evaluation of the services offered by an educational institution. The evaluation is done by an external body which determines if the services offered do meet the applicable standards, before awarding the institution the accredited status (Millard, 1983).

Accreditation in higher education is usually done by a governmental organization, mainly the ministry of education which is tasked with overseeing all the aspects of education at both national and state level. However, in the United States, this accreditation is performed by various professional private membership associations with the most famous association being the CHEA (Council for Higher Education Accreditation) (Banta, 2002).

This paper will analyze two major accreditation programs of post-secondary business education. The accreditation programs analyzed are those offered by the AACSB (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business) – international; and, the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS). The analysis will focus on the following domains of assessment: leadership, strategic planning, students/stakeholders, outcomes assessment, educational management processes, and human resources. There is also a comparison between the sets of standard set forth by these two accreditation programs.

The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) – International.

In 1916, the non-profit association, AACSB International was established to accredit business colleges’ degree programs. It revised and updated its protocols of accreditation standards in 1980 in order to address the evolving needs of the accounting profession (Swanson, 2005). Its overall aim is to advance quality management of education through accreditation processes, value-added services and thought leadership. Within the context of business schools, it aims to advance management education through engagement, innovation and impact (Abraham & Karns, 2009).

Eligibility criteria for accreditation.

The main purpose of eligibility criteria are the specification of vital core values, and provision of the scope of review of the accreditation process. Business colleges must be committed to these core values, and their policies should demonstrate an alignment towards these values in order for them to receive accreditation from AACSB (Miles, Hazeldine & Munilla, 2004). The foundations for accreditation as provided by the eligibility criteria do offer an agreement on which entities should be considered for accreditation. Thus, eligibility criteria do address the basic characteristics that determine the quality of the degree programs, research and other related activities. An applicant institution must have all these characteristics before it is approved to undergo the accreditation process (Thomas, 2007).).  The most basic of these characteristics is that the institution must have the structural capacity to deliver, sustain and promote quality management education and its related intellectual outgrowth. Therefore, prior to approval for accreditation, the applicant (institution) must provide the appropriate documentation showings its commitment to AACSB core values and its structural capacity to provide quality education. Hence, it can be deduced from the information provided above that the eligibility criteria form the foundation for eligibility application. If the institution is accredited, the AACSB would still carry out continuous evaluation of the institution to ensure its adherence to the set eligibility criteria. Such evaluation determines whether the institution should change its strategies in order to ensure its conformity with the AACSB eligibility criteria (Pringle & Michel, 2007).

The eligibility criteria are discussed below:

1.      The core values of AACSB and its guiding principles.

The core values are represented by the following criteria:

a)      The institution must embolden and reinforce ethical behavior among the students, professional staff and the faculty administrators. The institution must therefore have in place appropriate systems, procedures and policies that support and reflect support for ethical behavior among all its members (McKay, Kidwell & Kling, 2007). Also, these systems, procedures and policies should offer mechanisms for dealing with violations of the set standards of ethical behaviors. The criterions of these mechanisms must show a correlation with the institution’s general procedures. The reason for this is that AACSB will not involve itself in the institution’s internal affairs that relate to indiscipline and misconduct. The institution should therefore provide the appropriate documentation (to the AACSB review team) which details its published policies pertaining to ethical behaviors, description of programs about ethics; and description of the systems used to detect and address violation of ethical behaviors (Christensen et al, 2007).

b)      The institution must maintain a collegiate environment which supports appropriate interactions and collaboration among all members of the institution. This environment must be characterized by an emphasis on advanced learning, scholarship and scholarly approaches to studies. Thus, the scholarly education must correspond to and be consistent with the level of higher education offered. Also, the collegiate environment must foster interactions that reflect a community life. Moreover, the environment must support the involvement of the faculty in governance and any other appropriate university service. Thus, the institution should provide the appropriate documentation which details its collegiate environment, governance processes, overview of degree programs and a description of the culture that characterizes the institution (Sohail, & Shaikh, 2004).

c)      The institution must commit itself to address and respond to the ever-evolving corporate social responsibility through its curricula, policies, research, procedures and outreach activities. The institution must therefore demonstrate diversity in its population and ideas as this enriches the education experience (Zemsky, 2003). This would require the institution to foster tolerance and sensitivity to cultural differences and a multiplicity of viewpoints. For corporate social responsibility, the institution must demonstrate commitment to sustainable development, diversity and environmental sustainability (Martell, 2007). Therefore, the institution should provide the appropriate documentation which details its description of the idea of diversity and the values that foster tolerance of different viewpoints. The documentation should also show a breakdown of the students’ population according to their diverse backgrounds, and the measures undertaken by the institution to offer educational opportunities to underserved population groups. Likewise, the documentation should demonstrate the diversification of views in the educational process as this leads in provision of high-quality education. Additionally, the documentation should demonstrate that the institution addresses all aspects of corporate social responsibility through its own initiatives (Vidaver-Cohen, 2007).

2.      General Criteria.

The applicant for accreditation must be an established well-defined entity that is also a reputable AACSB member. Moreover the institution must be authorized to award a bachelor’s degree in business and its related fields. The current accreditation scope includes (Miles, Hazeldine & Munilla, 2004).:

1.      The entity seeking accreditation must fulfill the eligibility criteria, and approval must be provided in advance of onsite visit by the peer review team.

2.      The entity’s programmatic scope of certification must be based on AACSB processes and eligibility criteria.

3.      The entity must use AACSB brand and related declarations in its official communications as per the guidelines and policies of AACSB.

The current guidelines for documentation are:

1.      Completion of the AACSB Accreditation Eligibility Application by the applicant. This application confirms that the institution offers degree programs (or higher qualifications) in business, management education and their related fields. Also, the application confirms the existence of at least an academic unit which offers the degree programs stated above. Moreover, the application confirms that the institution affords appropriate levels of independence to branding, financial relations, external market perception and autonomy of the relevant academic unit. Independence in branding and external market perception is obligatory before accreditation can be provided (Friga, Bettis & Sullivan, 2003).

2.      The entity must agree on the programmatic scope of AACSB accreditation review which must include all the degree programs, research activities and related mission components (Miles, Hazeldine & Munilla, 2004). Inclusion of a degree program in the accreditation review process is determined by the following guidelines:

a)      Traditional business subjects must comprise at least 25% of the curricula of the bachelor degree program, and at least 50% of the curricula of the graduate degree program. The traditional business subjects are accounting, finance, business law, international business, decision sciences, management, economics, management information systems, entrepreneurship, management science, supply chain management, marketing, technology management, organizational development, organizational behavior, operations management and strategic management. All degree programs below the threshold stated above are excluded from the review process (Fiegen, Cherry & Watson, 2002).

b)      Other exclusion criteria of a degree program from the accreditation review process are (Emiliani, 2004):

                                                                    i.            Degree programs that have been accredited by a non-business accreditation association.

                                                                  ii.            Specialized degree program not marketed in association with the business program under review.

                                                                iii.            Degree offered by an independent or separate campus.

                                                                iv.            Degrees offered through a consortium of institutions that do not bear the applicant’s name on their transcript or diploma.

                                                                  v.            Degrees offered for secondary business education.

On the other hand, the following degree programs are considered for review by AACSB (Emiliani, 2004):

1.      Degree programs delivered jointly by the applicant and partner institutions if any of the partner institution is recognized by AACSB.

2.      Degree programs offered by non-business academic units of the applicant entity if these units are reviewed against the appropriate standards related to selection and retention of students, qualification of faculty staff members and the appropriateness of teaching.

3.      Degree programs that utilize the AACSB International brand appropriately as per the policies and guidelines set down by AACSB.

AACSB does recognize variation in the cultural contexts and national systems under which an entity operates and as such it is able to modify its understanding of what is considered traditional subjects to include variants of these subject offered by the entity (Emiliani, 2004).

The chief executive officer of the applicant’s business school and the chief academic officer of the institution must support the application for accreditation, as they are required to commit themselves to ensure compliance of the institution to the standards set by the AACSB (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2003).

Introduction of new degree programs not evaluated in the previous AACSB review may be   tagged as AACSB-accredited till the next updated accreditation review takes place. However, similar programs offered by non-business academic units must not be tagged as AACSB-accredited until they are reviewed in the subsequent review process.

The institution must be designed and organized in such a way as to ensure accountability, proper oversight and responsibility for its operations. These operations must also be supported by continuous provision of human, infrastructural, financial and physical resources. Also, processes and policies must be laid for continuous improvement (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2003).

The bases for judgment for fulfillment of the general criteria are (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2003):

1.      An administrative structure and a set of practices that support and sustain excellence, distinction and continuous improvement of education and the collegiate environment.

2.      An organizational structure that provides proper oversight, surveillance and accountability for the mission of the institution and its related components as they relate to management and business education.

3.      Processes and policies of the institution that support accountability and continuous educational improvement.

4.      Demonstration by the applicant entity that it possesses adequate and sustained resources that support the academic units seeking accreditation.

Based on the above information, the applicant is thus required to submit documentations that provide descriptions of its organizational structure alongside the relevant organizational charts (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2003). The documentations must also provide an appropriate overview of the policies, processes and structures of the institution that support intellectual advancement. Such advancement does contribute to the development of theory and practice of business and its management correlate (Hawawini, 2005). Also, the institution must provide a summarization of its annual financial performance in relation to its budget and available financial resources. Likewise, the institution must provide documentations depicting the trends in resource management and its impact on the institution’s operations including its non-business related mission activities. These documentations must also provide an adequate description of the faculty resources of the institution alongside its division of labor protocols. Additionally, the documentations must provide a description of the teaching/learning models of each degree program (Weldy & Turnipseed, 2010).

Consequently, AACSB accreditation requires that all the degree programs reviewed must demonstrate continued adherence to its stipulations. Thus, institutions are required to submit timely and accurate information concerning the above stated adherence. Accreditation by AACSB does also mean that the institution has an obligation to submit reviews requested by AACSB. Deliberate misrepresentation of information requested could lead to revocation of the accreditation (Walck, 2009).).

The Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS).

The Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS) is a non-profit educational organization that was formed in 1912 as an association of business schools. It received official recognition from the U.S. Department of Education in 1956. It is now recognized by the federal government as a national accrediting body for higher education institutions, and as such its review and assessment of institutions does determine if these institution will receive federal grants (Lenn, 1987). According to ACICS, voluntary periodic evaluation of institutions by a professional accreditation association (comprised of peer evaluators) does improve the quality of education offered by that institution. Thus, the association posits that self-regulation achieves better outcomes than outside regulation.

ACICS has developed and updated its set of procedures, policies and standards in order to streamline its operations. An institution is duly accredited as a member of ACICS upon the institution’s compliance with the ACICS accreditation criteria. The main aim of these criteria is to ensure that accredited institutions do demonstrate excellence in professional conduct and delivery of services (Brittingham, 2009).

Eligibility criteria for accreditation.

ACICS fulfills both evaluative and accrediting functions for postsecondary business schools. The U.S. Department of Education does recognize these functions as appropriate for independent nonpublic institutions. ACICS aims to advance educational excellence in these institutions by conducting a comprehensive accreditation process (Brittingham, 2009).

An institution must satisfy the following minimum eligibility criteria before it is accredited by ACICS (Brittingham, 2009):

1.      The institution must offer postsecondary education that prepares the students for technical, occupational and professional careers. Thus, the academic credentials recognized are college certificates, diploma, associate degree bachelor’s degree and master’s degree. Thus a postsecondary institution offer programs whose content is of postsecondary education level to students who have completed their high school education or its equivalent. Moreover, the length of a program offered must exceed 300 clock hours.

2.      The institution must be legally recognized by the appropriate education agency, and it should have provided its programs for more than two years prior to application for accreditation.

3.      The mission of the institution must be to offer programs that help students acquire, develop and enhance skills and competencies that will enhance their career development.

4.      Enrollment in a program must be sufficient to support the learning experience and educational effectiveness of the program. This also applies to institutions offering distance education.

5.      The institution must have an adequate number of graduates from its programs in order to enable the assessment of its educational effectiveness.

6.      The institution must comply with the applicable constitutional obligations, regulations and statutes.

7.      The institution must be organized as a limited liability company, limited partnership (in which one of the partners is a corporate general), or as a corporation.

8.      The CEO (chief executive officer) of the institution must authorize the evaluation to be done by ACICS.

9.      The managers or owners of the institution must have never been disqualified by ACICS.

Comparison between AACSB and ACICS sets of standards.

The sets of standards set down by AACSB do cover a wider scope of business education than a similar set of standards set down by ACICS. However there are some similarities in their corresponding set of standards as described below.

Both AACSB and ACICS do require that the institution seeking accreditation must offer postsecondary education programs that prepare the students for professional careers. These programs must include both bachelor and master’s degree programs. Also, both accreditation associations maintain that the institution seeking accreditation must be legally recognized by the appropriate education agency. Moreover, they both state that the institution must comply with the applicable constitutional obligations, regulations and statutes.

Also, both AACSB and ACICS state that the CEO of the institution must authorize the evaluation to be done by the accreditation institutions. However, AACSB requires the additional approval by the chief academic officer of the school.

Moreover, both AACSB and ACICS do have criteria for evaluating and accrediting non-standard programs offered by institutions seeking accreditation from them.

Moreover, both AACSB and ACICS require that enrollment in a program must be sufficient enough to support the learning experience and educational effectiveness of the program. In ACICS, the assessment of educational effectiveness is done by evaluating the graduates from that program. AACSB does do a similar assessment of educational effectiveness but by evaluating the documentations provided by the institution.

According to AACSB, the institution seeking accreditation must maintain a collegiate environment which supports appropriate interactions and collaboration among all members of the institution. In ACICS, a similar message can be deduced from the statement that the mission of the institution must be to offer programs that help students acquire, develop and enhance skills and competencies that will enhance their career development.

According to AACSB, the institution seeking accreditation must commit itself to address and respond to the evolving issues concerning corporate social responsibility through its curricula, policies, research, procedures and outreach activities. In ACICS, a similar message can be inferred from the statement that the mission of the institution must be to offer programs that help students acquire, develop and enhance skills and competencies that will enhance their career development.

There are differences in the sets of standards set by AACSB and ACICS as described below.

According to AACSB, the institution seeking accreditation must embolden and reinforce ethical behavior among its students, professional staff and faculty administrators. The institution must therefore have in place appropriate systems, procedures and policies that support and reflect support for ethical behavior among all its members. However, ACICS does not have ethical behavior as one of its values.

Also, according to ACICS, the institution applying for accreditation must be organized as a limited liability company, limited partnership (in which one of the partners is a corporate general), or as a corporation. There is no such stipulation in AACSB.

Moreover, periodic evaluation is done when the institution voluntarily ages to such an evaluation in ACICS, while in AACSB, evaluation is done continuously.

Critical analysis of areas of assessment.

1.      Leadership.

According to both AACSB and ACICS, leadership is provided by the institution’s administration panel. This panel includes the faculty administration, faculty members and sometimes, a representative for the students. The leadership must ensure that the operations of the institution do conform to its stated missions and objectives. Moreover, the institution leadership must provide adequate freedom to allow for academic excellence (Melé, 2008).

2.      Strategic planning.

According to AACSB, the strategic planning is related to the mission of the institution. This mission is determined by three interrelated criteria which are outlined hereafter. To begin with, the institution’s mission must be descriptive, appropriate and transparent to all the students, faculty members and other stakeholders of the institution. Second, such a mission must provide the guidelines for making decisions in the institution. Thirdly, the mission must demonstrate alignment to the strategies and approaches of the institution. Thus, strategic planning must uphold the mission statement of the institution and also promote educational efficiency. In ACICS, strategic planning is related to the provision of excellent postsecondary education, and as such the process of strategic planning is geared towards educational achievement in the relevant institutions (Prager, 1995).

3.      Students/stakeholders.

AACSB stipulates that students and other stakeholders must adhere to an ethical code of conduct which includes showing tolerance to cultural differences. This aims at creating an appropriate collegiate environment whereby the students would achieve the optimum benefit that can maximally derive from the institution. In ACICS, the students are a central foundation upon which the institution’s policy framework is built on and operationalized. Other stakeholders, such as the institution partners do also take part in the decision making processes (Hansen, 2006).

4.      Outcomes assessment.

AASCB does carry out continuous assessment and evaluation of the institution’s operation in order to ensure that the institution conforms and complies with the standards set down by AACSB. A team of reviewers from ACSB do go through the relevant documentation in order to assess the outcomes of policy interventions. Such assessment is made in consideration of the national and cultural context of the institution.  In ACCICS, the institution subjects itself voluntarily for peer evaluation. Such evaluations are done using graduate achievements in the careers (Zemsky, 2003).

5.      Educational management processes.

The institution must maintain a collegiate environment which supports appropriate interactions and collaboration among members of the institution. This environment must be characterized by an emphasis on advanced learning, scholarship and scholarly approaches to studies (Wise, 2005). This requires tolerance to diverging viewpoints and cultural differences. This ensures that the scholarly education corresponds to the level of higher education. This requires an elaborate educational management process which ensures that the content of the education is updated appropriately (Nicholson & DeMoss 2009).

6.      Human resources.

Human resources do determine if an institution will achieve its goals or not.  The institution must therefore have an organizational structure that provides proper oversight, surveillance and accountability for the utilization of the human resources. Prudent utilization of the human resource component does lead to excellent educational achievement of the students, and better financial performance for the institution (Temponi, 2005).

Conclusion.

The main aim of accreditation in higher education is to ensure that quality education is offered by post-secondary institutions.  Accreditation involves evaluation of the services offered by an educational institution, and this evaluation is done by an external body which determines if the services offered do meet the applicable standards, before awarding the institution the accredited status. In the United States, accreditation is performed by various professional private membership associations which are recognized as such by the government. The two major accreditation programs for post-secondary business education are offered by the AACSB-international, and the ACICS. Both of them are recognized by the government as educational accreditation bodies.

References.

Martell, K. (2007). Assessing student learning: Are business schools making the grade?. The Journal of Education for Business, 82(4), 189-195.

Pringle, C., & Michel, M. (2007). Assessment practices in AACSB-accredited business schools. Journal of Education for Business, 82(4), 202-211.

Christensen, L. J., Peirce, E., Hartman, L. P., Hoffman, W. M., & Carrier, J. (2007).. Ethics, CSR, and sustainability education in the financial times top 50 global business schools: Baseline data and future research directions. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(4), 347-368.

Miles, M. P., Hazeldine, M. F., & Munilla, L. S. (2004). The 2003 AACSB accreditation standards and implications for business faculty: A short note. Journal of Education for Business, 80(1), 29-34.

Sohail, M. S., & Shaikh, N. M. (2004). Quest for excellence in business education: a study of student impressions of service quality. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(1), 58-65.

Friga, P. N., Bettis, R. A., & Sullivan, R. S. (2003). Changes in graduate management education and new business school strategies for the 21st century. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(3), 233-249.

Swanson, D. L. (2005). Business ethics education at bay: Addressing a crisis of legitimacy. Issues in Accounting Education, 20(3), 247-253.

Thomas, H. (2007). Business school strategy and the metrics for success. Journal of Management Development, 26(1), 33-42.

Fiegen, A. M., Cherry, B., & Watson, K. (2002). Reflections on collaboration: Learning outcomes and information literacy assessment in the business curriculum. Reference Services Review, 30(4), 307-318.

Kinicki, A., & Kreitner, R. (2003). Organizational behavior: key concepts, skills & best practices. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2007). Reputation beyond the rankings: a conceptual framework for business school research. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(4), 278-304.

Emiliani, M. L. (2004). Improving business school courses by applying lean principles and practices. Quality Assurance in Education, 12(4), 175-187.

Abraham, S. E., & Karns, L. A. (2009). Do business schools value the competencies that businesses value?. Journal of Education for Business, 84(6), 350-356.

Hawawini, G. (2005). The future of business schools. Journal of Management Development, 24(9), 770-782.

Weldy, T. G., & Turnipseed, D. L. (2010). Assessing and improving learning in business schools: Direct and indirect measures of learning. Journal of Education for Business, 85(5), 268-273.

Walck, C. (2009). Integrating Sustainability into Management Education A Dean's Perspective. Journal of Management Education, 33(3), 384-390.

Zemsky, R. (2003). In Pursuit of Prestige: Strategy and Competition in US Higher Education (review). The Journal of Higher Education, 74(4), 474-476.

Hansen, R. S. (2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: Suggestions for improving team projects. Journal of Education for Business, 82(1), 11-19.

Hazeldine, M., & Miles, M. (2007). Measuring entrepreneurship in business schools. Journal of Education for Business, 82(4), 234-240.

Temponi, C. (2005). Continuous improvement framework: implications for academia. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(1), 17-36.

Nicholson, C. Y., & DeMoss, M. (2009). Teaching ethics and social responsibility: an evaluation of undergraduate business education at the discipline level. Journal of education for business, 84(4), 213-218.

McKay, R. B., Kidwell, L. A., & Kling, J. A. (2007). Faculty ethics from the perspective of college of business administrators. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 10(1), 105-124.

Melé, D. (2008). Integrating ethics into management. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(3), 291-297.

Wise, A. E. (2005). Establishing teaching as a profession the essential role of professional accreditation. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(4), 318-331.

Brittingham, B. (2009). Accreditation in the United States: How did we get to where we are?. New Directions for Higher Education, 2009(145), 7-27.

Millard, R. M. (1983). Accreditation. New directions for higher education, 1983(43), 9-28.

Miller, J. W., & Hamilton, W. J. (1964). The independent business school in American education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Lenn, M. P. (1987). Accreditation, certification, and licensure. New Directions for Higher Education, 1987(57), 49-63.

Banta, W. (2002). Building a scholarship of assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.

Prager, C. (1995). Ties that bind: Default, accreditation, and articulation. New Directions for Community Colleges, 1995(91), 61-70.