At its best, accreditation serves to improve the quality of educational programs, foster self reflection and self examination, and help all constituencies of the accredited program be better informed about its goals and progress.

If put to the wrong uses, however, accreditation could serve (advertently or inadvertently) as a vehicle to entrench old traditions, perpetuate rigid prescriptions that inhibit innovation and progress, and act as a sinkhole for program resources (that are devoted to over-elaborative preparations for accreditation visits rather than to improvement of education). If not used properly, accreditation could become a tool for external meddling and intimidation, a mechanism for pressing school administrations for resources, or a vehicle for political maneuvering.

As one example, all participants in the accreditation process should realize that it is not the place of the evaluation team to provide the visited program with detailed prescriptions and instructions on methodology. The evaluation team should also understand that “one size does not fit all” -- different programs have different constituencies, aims, traditions and histories. Accreditation must be conducted in context. Some of the potential misuses of the accreditation process include:

Coercing schools and programs to be accredited (this is very common)
Using accreditation as disciplinary action
Using accreditation for ranking and comparison of accredited programs
Using accreditation to controlling the school, limit competition or cap enrollments
Favor one constituency of the program over others
Homogenize higher education

Hallmarks of a Good Accreditation System
Some of the characteristics of good accreditation systems include:

The process is voluntary and preferably led by local educators and practitioners (as opposed to accreditation by visitors from faraway countries)
The process is not controlled by the government (government inspection is not accreditation)
Programs have real choice of an accrediting body (there is competition between accrediting bodies)
A professional agency, external to the accredited program, conducts the process
   - Basing the process on the objectives of the program and the constituencies it serves
   - Using representation from all major constituencies in the evaluation team
The evaluation is based on clear, published standards
The process is evaluative rather than regulatory
   - Providing no detailed prescriptions
   - Designating no specific methodology

About | Benefits | Approaches | Challenges | Accrediting Bodies | Program Prep | Global Trends | Misuse